Jharkhand High Court
Umesh Prasad Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1799 of 2023
Umesh Prasad Singh, S/O Janardan Prasad Singh, R/O- Ward no.2
Aliganj, P.O & P.S- Pakur, Dist- Pakur ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Rural Development Department, (ग्रामीण कार्य मामले)
Government of Jharkhand, P.O & P.S- Ranchi, Dist- Ranchi.
3. Supritending Engineer, Rural work Division, (ग्रामीण कार्य मामले) के कार्य
अंचल दु मका, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, Dist- Dumka
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Roy, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Shankar Jee, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AC to AAG-V
Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V
---
05/27.02.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For commanding upon the respondents to calculate and release the payment of promotional benefits accruing to the petitioner on account of his promotion on the post of Lower Division Clerk in terms of order contained in memo no. 706 dated 31.07.95 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to join on the post of tracer, a technical post on which the petitioner was not eligible for posting and as such represented to the respondents to allow him to join on the post of junior division clerk but in spite of several representation the office of the respondent did not passed any order and ultimately the petitioner retired from service in May 2008 and thereafter the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and thus have deprived the petitioner to get the promotional benefits and or for passing orders for doing justice to the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted promotion vide letter dated 31.07.1995 to the post of Tracer (Anurekhak) in terms of the order passed in the meeting of the Establishment Committee against the existing vacancies in the pay scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-30-1500/- and an office order to that 2 effect was the order dated 31.07.1995 (Annexure- 2). The petitioner was directed to join the promotional post of Tracer at Jamtara.
4. However, the petitioner had objections in connection with the promotion granted to him as the petitioner contended that the said post was a technical post for which certain technical qualification was required; since the petitioner did not have such technical qualifications and experience to do the office work of Tracer, he made representation to work on the promotional post of lower division clerk, which was vacant and was equivalent to the post of Tracer. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted promotion pursuant to the order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5252 of 1987, whereby the respondent- Superintending Engineer was directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was given promotion, but to keep him away from the promotional post and monetary benefit, he was intentionally promoted to a technical post for which the petitioner was not eligible. It is his further case that one similarly situated person who was junior to the petitioner was given the promotional post of lower division clerk with effect from 1988, but the petitioner was never given promotion to the post of lower division clerk which was equivalent to the post of Tracer.
6. The learned counsel has also referred to the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5698 of 1988, wherein it has been recorded that the Registry had put up a note that the record of writ petition of 1988 was not available, and the Hon'ble Court recorded that if the point was still available, then the petitioner may move appropriate application annexing a copy of the said writ petition along with entire pleadings so that the main petition could be reconstructed.
7. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the order dated 28.01.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 987 of 2007, wherein the petitioner had raised a grievance to consider and promote him from the date on which juniors to the petitioner were promoted, and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly attained the age of superannuation in the year 2008.
38. Upon a query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that no representation has been placed on record pertaining to the period immediately after the issuance of the order of promotion dated 31.07.1995 and the earliest representation on record is of the year 2001.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been fighting for his promotion, and a writ petition was filed being CWJC No. 5252 of 1987, which, as per the petitioner, was disposed of with a direction upon the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and ultimately the petitioner was granted promotion in the year 1995 vide Annexure-2 dated 31.07.1995.
10. The petitioner did not join the promoted post and had objection in connection with the promotion granted to the petitioner since the petitioner contended that the post on which he was promoted was a technical post and the petitioner was not qualified to attend that post, and the petitioner insisted that he should be given promotion to the post of lower division clerk, which was equivalent to the post of Tracer (the post in which he was promoted).
11. This Court further finds that after the bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.(S) No. 987 of 2007, wherein the petitioner sought a direction upon the authority to consider and promote him from the date on which his juniors were promoted, and it was his case that his juniors were promoted and the case of the petitioner was not considered. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2008 enabling the petitioner to pursue his representation before the competent authority.
12. From the perusal of the order dated 28.01.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 987 of 2007, it appears that even at that stage, the petitioner did not agitate his grievance regarding his promotion to the post of Tracer instead of lower division clerk, and his grievance was only in relation to grant of promotion to the juniors to the petitioner, ignoring his case.
13. This Court finds that admittedly the petitioner did not join the promoted post (tracer) , and in the records of this case the earliest 4 representation in connection with the promotion granted on 31.07.1995 is of the year 2001.Such grievance of the petitioner was not even agitated by him by filing a subsequent writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 987 of 2007.
14. In view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Tracer to which the petitioner did not join and ultimately, he attained the age of superannuation, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj