Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 10 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6651 of 2022
Sunil Kumar... .....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Drinking Water
and Sanitation, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ... Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner(s): M/s Abhay Prakash and Astha Tripathi, Advocates.
For the respondent(s): M/s Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III & Neha Pandey, AC toSr. SC-III
------
04/10.02.2023: In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the
respondents to shift/modify the date of promotion of the petitioner, on the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from 1.1.2003, in terms of order of this Court
passed in WPS No. 2358 of 2010 (Arun Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. the State of
Jharkhand and Ors.) vide judgment dated 6.9.2021 and consequent office order
dated 14.12.2021 issued by the respondents in compliance of the aforesaid
judgment. It has further been prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay
all consequential benefits upon shifting the date of promotion.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the his date of promotion to the post
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) should be shifted to 1.1.2003 from 15.1.2007 and all
consequential benefits should be granted. It is further case of the petitioner that
his juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers from 1.1.2003 in
compliance of a judgment dated 6.9.2021 passed by this Court in WPS No. 2358
of 2010, but this petitioner has not been extended the same benefit rather he has
been superseded taking shelter the judgment of this Court, on the ground that the
petitioner was not a party to the writ petition being WPS No. 2358 of 2020.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed
representation before respondent No. 2, but the same has not been disposed of.
He prays that suffice it would be if a direction is given to respondent No. 2 to pass
appropriate order on the representation considering the order/judgment passed in
WPS No. 2358 of 2010.
4. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner should file fresh
representation, annexing all documents before respondent No.2, who will consider
the case of the petitioner and thereafter an appropriate order will be passed.
5. Considering the aforesaid submission, I direct the petitioner to file a
fresh representation before respondent No. 2 annexing all the documents. If such
representation is filed, respondent No. 2 will enquire and look into the matter and
an appropriate order will be passed on the representation by the competent
authority. The reason order should also be communicated to the petitioner.
6. The entire process should be completed within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order along with fresh representation.
7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
