Jharkhand High Court
Prem Chand Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 December, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5442 of 2011
Prem Chand Dubey, son of late Ramadhar Dubey, resident of Suntha
P.O. Pandeypura P.S. Patan District Palamu
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa
District Ranchi
3. Deputy Commissioner Palamu P.O. P.S. Palamu District - Palamu
4. District Superintendent of Education, Palamu P.O. P.S. Palamu
District - Palamu
5. District Education Officer Palamu P.O. P.S. Palamu District -
Palamu ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, Advocate
---
11/08.12.2022 Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For a direction upon the respondents to grant grade 7 (Principal) scale w.e.f. the date on which the present petitioner should have been promoted i.e. on the date of completion 5 years of service as Graduate Trained Teacher, taking into consideration of the fact that the present petitioner is situated at S no.1 in the seniority gradation list published for the year 2007 by the respondents and also taking into consideration the fact that the benefits of the grade 7 pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated persons and also in view of the fact that as per the notification issued by the District Superintendent of Education dated 21.07.2010 in which such teachers who have completed 5 years of service in the graduate trained scale have been granted promotion from grade 4 to grade 7 pay scale and even though the petitioner has completed the 5 years stipulated term has not been granted the due promotion in a most arbitrary manner. And / or
(ii) For a direction upon the respondents to fix the retiral benefits and other consequential at the enhanced rate which was due to the present petitioner but the same was denied in a most arbitrary manner."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as matric trained teacher on 31.08.1973 and was given the promotional post of graduate trained teacher on 01.04.2002 in Grade 4. He further submits that the petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier before this Court being W.P.(S). No.5763 of 2005 as mentioned in para 7 of the writ petition and the Grade 4 promotion was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2002 only by virtue of direction issued by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. He submits 2 that Memo No.1162 dated 20.06.2008, is the order of promotion of the petitioner to Grade 4 making it effective from 01.04.2002 notionally and financial benefit from 20.06.2008 i.e., the date of issuance of the order. The learned counsel has referred to the gradation list as contained in Annexure- 2 and submits that the name of the petitioner in the gradation list figured at the top amongst 10 persons. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2009. He submits that vide order dated 21.07.2010, promotion was granted to 8 persons including juniors to the petitioner and the order of promotion was made effective from 01.04.2008. As an example, he submits that out of the persons, whose names appear in the gradation list, two persons including the petitioner were left out and 8 persons were promoted and the reason apparently is that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation by that time. The learned counsel submits that since the notional promotion was given to all others with effect from 01.04.2008, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered as petitioner was very much in service on 01.04.2008 and his case was also required to be considered as he was senior to all the persons, who were promoted w.e.f. 01.04.2008. He submits that the petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, but no order has been passed. The learned counsel has also referred to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner vide affidavit dated 02.12.2022 and he refers to Annexure - A which is an order of the government dated 26.08.2021 and submits that the said order also enables the respondents to give notional promotion. He also submits that the vacancies are available and notional promotion can be granted to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no adverse order as such has been passed in connection with the claim of the promotion of the petitioner. However, the same can be considered by the respondents taking into consideration appropriate Circular and Decisions of the Government. He also submits that in terms of Circular dated 26.08.2021, the persons who have already been granted promotion, their promotion is not to be disturbed. He also submits that 3 he is not aware as to whether there are available vacancies to consider the promotion of the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to Grade 4 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 notionally and financial benefit was to be given from 20.06.2008. It appears that the name of the petitioner appeared senior most in the seniority list as contained in Annexure- 2. It further appears that when the promotion to Grade 7 was considered vide Annexure - 3 dated 21.07.2010, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and apparently the promotion to juniors to the petitioner was given notionally w.e.f. 01.04.2008. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was in service as on 01.04.2008.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has already raised his grievance before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau with regard to grant of promotion to Grade 7, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered as per applicable Norms/Guidelines etc. as may be applicable to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the respondent no.3 by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of the writ records within a period of two months from today. The claim of the petitioner be considered by the respondent no.3 by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law subject to satisfaction of other criteria, if any, as may be applicable for which necessary information may be sought for from respondent no.4. Since no order, either granting or refusing promotion to the petitioner, has been passed so far, therefore, the matter is being remitted for consideration by respondent no.3.
9. This Court has not entered into the merit or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner and it will be for the respondent no.3 to act in accordance with law considering the various Guidelines and Circulars issued by the State Government.
10. The reasoned order be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation and be communicated to 4 the petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself.
11. If the petitioner is found entitled for promotion to Grade 7 and for consequent monetary benefits as per the reasoned order to be passed, appropriate steps be also taken by the respondent no.3 so that the monetary benefit of the same is also extended to the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of the reasoned order.
12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav