Patna High Court - Orders
Md.Idris vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 March, 2010
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Ravi Ranjan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.791 of 2009
MD.IDRIS, SON OF MD. ALLAH RAKHOO, RESIDENT OF
MOHALLA-PATHAR KI MASJID, P.S. SULTANGANJ,
DISTRICT-PATNA.
(PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION).
........................................................................APPELLANT.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.
5. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW
SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.
6. THE DIRECTOR, T.B. DEMONSTRATION & TRAINING
CENTRE, PATNA.
(RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION).
.............................................................RESPONDENTS.
-----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Mohan Verma, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Assistant
Counsel to A.A.G.-II.
-------------
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN.
O R D E R
( 22.03.2010) As per Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J:- The writ petitioner-appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2009 passed in 2 C.W.J.C. No.5092 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the State.
3. The claim of the writ petitioner-appellant is that he was appointed as a Peon in the office of the Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and had joined on 5.7.1958. Subsequently, he was transferred to the office of the Director, T.B.D.C., Patna and continuously worked there till his retirement on 30.6.1996. The petitioner was given First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 and had been granted Second Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1.4.1984. However, though he became eligible for Super Time Selection Grade Promotion with effect from 1.3.1989, the same was not accorded to him. It had also been claimed that the aforesaid benefit had been granted to some other employees of the same Department, who were junior to the petitioner. Even though, the writ petitioner-appellant made several representations, none of them could find favour of the authorities and, thus, the writ petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition bearing 3 C.W.J.C. No.2783 of 1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.5.2000, giving liberty to the petitioner to move before the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, who was directed that if any one or the other person, junior to the petitioner was found to have been promoted in the Super Time Pay Scale from a date prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner, i.e., 30th June, 1996, without consideration of the case of the petitioner, in that event would consider the case of the petitioner for such promotion from the due date, i.e., a date from which such junior, if any, had been promoted. Such representation of the writ petitioner-appellant had been rejected vide Annexure-'10' to the present writ petition. The writ petitioner-appellant then filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the Annexure-'10' alongwith some other related and consequential reliefs.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant submitted that non grant of Super Time Selection Grade Promotion and stagnation increment, had affected his pension, gratuity and other retrial benefits as the same had been fixed or calculated at a lower pay scale causing huge and perpetual 4 monetary loss to the petitioner. It had further been contended that the State Government vide Annexure-'7' to the writ petition, had clearly given a direction for extending Time Bound or Selection Grade Promotion, to such employees, who were entitled for the same on 31.12.1995, as such, provision for promotion had come to an end with effect from 1.1.1996. On the strength of the aforesaid letter, as contained in Annexure-'7', learned counsel submitted that the Respondent No.6 was bound to follow the instructions of the State Government and ought to have allowed the benefit to the petitioner from 18.12.1989, i.e., the date of entitlement. Thus, it had been urged that the learned Single Judge had committed grave error in not considering the claim of the petitioner specially in view of the instructions of the State Government as aforesaid and in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the representation of the petitioner had been well considered and then rejected vide letter as contained in Annexure-'10' to the writ petition. It had categorically been stated therein that the then Director 5 had also not given the Super Time Selection Grade Promotion to any senior or junior employee. A categorical statement to that extent had been made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.6 also. That apart, it had been urged that the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant also suffered from the vice of undue delay and laches and, as such, his claim had rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
6. We also do not find any force in the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner- appellant. According to the writ petitioner-appellant himself, he became entitled for Super Time Selection Grade Promotion with effect from 1.3.1989, however, he did not pursue any legal remedy for the same till his superannuation on 30.6.1996. In the year 1999, i.e. after 3 years of his retirement, he approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.2783 of 1999, however, this Court permitted him to represent before the authority and the same representation has now been rejected. It has well been observed by the learned Single Judge, while refusing to exercise the discretionary power of the Writ Court, that the cause of action for the writ petitioner- 6 appellant arose on 1.3.1989 itself but the same was not agitated till his superannuation on 30.6.1996. Belatedly, after three years of his retirement, a writ petition was filed in the year 1999 and further that now he is trying to agitate a belated and stale claim on the basis of rejection of his representation by the authorities concerned. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon a decision rendered in C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and another {(2008)10 Supreme Court Cases 115)} in this regard and had come to the conclusion that after consideration and rejection of the representation in compliance of the direction of this Court dated 4.5.2000 in C.W.J.C. No.2783 of 1999, the stale claim of the writ petitioner-appellant could not be revived to give rise to a fresh cause of action. That apart, in view of the stand taken by the authorities in the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-'10' to the writ petition as well as a categorical statement made in this regard in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the writ petition that none of the junior or any junior or rather any employee of that category had been given Super Time Selection Grade Promotion, coupled 7 with the fact that the instruction dated 18th of October, 2000 is only to the extent that the pending representations or cases for Time Bound and Selection Grade Promotion should be disposed of, we are also in concurrence with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge that no fresh cause of action or fresh right could have been created in favour of the petitioner.
7. In above view of the matter and in the facts and the circumstances of the case, we also do not find any reason for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this intra-court appeal.
8. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
I agree.
(Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Patna High Court.
The 22nd March, 2010. Pradeep Srivastava/N.A.F.R.