Bijay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 371 Jhar

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 371 Jhar
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2021

Jharkhand High Court

Bijay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 25 January, 2021

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W.P. (S) No. 944 of 2020
                  Bijay Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of late Shiv Prasad Sahu,
                  Resident of Kali Sthan Road, P.S. Daily Market, P.O. Lower Bazar,
                  District- Ranchi, at present posted in Department of Personnel
                  Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of
                  Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi ... Petitioner
                                            -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
                  Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
             2.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative
                  Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O.
                  & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
             3.   The Principal Secretary, Revenue Registration and Land Reforms
                  Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
                  Ranchi
             4.   The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms
                  and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.
                  Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
             5.   The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative
                  Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O.
                  & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi                 ... Respondents
                                           -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Ms. Shrestha Mehta, A.C. to S.C.-II

-----

05/25.01.2021. Heard Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Ms. Shrestha Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view

of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any

technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard on merit.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the

respondents to consider and grant promotion to the petitioner with all

consequential benefits with effect from 06.07.2015 i.e the date on which the

juniors to the petitioner had been granted promotion on the post of Junior

Selection Grade.

4. Earlier the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 584

of 2018 for grant of promotion which has been disposed of by this Court

vide order dated 11.09.2018 with direction to consider the case of the

petitioner and to pass appropriate reasoned order. It was observed that if

the petitioner is found eligible for the promotion, the same shall be provided

to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, pursuant to which the case

of the petitioner was considered by the Department vide Annexure-5,

whereby, notional promotion has been provided to the petitioner but

consequential benefits i.e. salary etc. has not been provided to the

petitioner. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is already

direction of this Hon'ble Court in the earlier writ petition, but in spite of that

only notional promotion has been provided to the petitioner but

consequential benefit has not been provided to the petitioner which is

against the order of this Court. He relied upon the judgment in the case of

Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in 1990(2)

PLJR 248 particularly, para 22, 23, 24. He further relied on judgment in

the case of The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary &

Ors. Vs. Suryadeo Prasad passed in L.P.A. No. 481 of 2010 dated

22.08.2012 in which it has been held as under:-

"Now, in the impugned order of the department, by which the respondent has been denied the promotion, the only ground taken is that since the respondent has retired, therefore, he was not entitled to the promotion. It is submitted that Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code has no application to the facts of the case as has been held by the learned Single Judge. In view of the above fact that the said Rule applies to the persons who voluntarily do not assume the charge and the duties of the post then they are not entitled to pay and allowances attached to the said post which such employee has not assumed the charge."

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that this

writ petition is misconceived as the petitioner was required to file contempt

petition if the order was not passed in compliance of earlier order of this

Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that

on earlier occasion also A.C.Rs. of the petitioner was not sent to the D.P.C.

that is why promotion has been denied. Now in the present case also,

consequential benefit has not been provided to the petitioner which is

against the judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Suryadeo

Prasad" (supra). The facts of the present case are fully covered with the

facts of the aforesaid judgment.

8. In view of the above facts, the writ petition succeeds and accordingly,

the same stands allowed. The respondents are directed to release

consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from notional promotion

granted to the petitioner.