Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Rabidas vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 28 June, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5911 of 2005
Suresh Rabidas ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioner : M/s A.K. Sahani, Gouri Devi, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, J.C. to G.A.
05/28.06.2011Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
By means of this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure13), in reply to his request for promotion to the post of Class III on compassionate ground has been rejected.
The submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was appointed in place of his father, who died in harness. The petitioner's father was working on the post of Block Agriculture Officer, but the petitioner was given appointment as Class IV employee. It is further contended that the petitioner being graduate, he was liable to be appointed as Class III employee. The petitioner had approached the department and then preferred the Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3615 of 1998 (R) (Manoj Kumar Mahto & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), claiming appointment and his entitlement on a Class III post. The writ petition was dismissed. However, he was not debarred for further consideration of his promotion departmentally.
The contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the department has declined to consider his case of promotion on the post of Class III employee since he was given appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, he is constrained to serve life long on Class IV post.
On perusal of the impugned order dated 19.11.2003, it transpires that this is not what the learned counsel has tried to argue. In fact, the impugned order clearly shows that the Director Agriculture, Ranchi has declined to grant promotion on compassionate ground and not that he will never be considered for promotion in his entire career. Therefore, I am not inclined to quash the order dated 19.11.2003. It is correct that a person cannot be given benefit twice on compassionate ground. Initially, the petitioner was appointed on a Class IV post and, therefore, he cannot be granted promotion on a Class III post only for compassionate reasons.
Learned counsel has tried to draw my attention to certain recommendations, which are Annexure 10, 11 and 11/1, whereby there was a recommendation for promotion of the petitioner and, therefore, his claim was only to be considered for promotion, along with other employees since he has worked for a period of 18 years without any complaint.
In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to quash the impugned order. All the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner is entitled for promotion, his case may be considered, along with similarly placed other employees as and when occasion arises. Whenever the promotion of other employees are being considered or promotion is going to take place, the case of the petitioner should also be considered.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.) Manish