Jharkhand High Court
Nishi Kant Jha vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 3 April, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2023
Nishi Kant Jha ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No.6028 of 2022
Anjani Kumar Sinha and others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advocate
: Ms. Deepmala, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC III
: Ms. Apoorva Singh, AC to Sr SC III
For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Kumar AC to Sr. SCI
---
06/03.04.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the
facts of W.P.(S) No.393 of 2023 has submitted that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 29.10.1994 and was
granted promotion from Grade I to Grade IV in terms of the
promotion Rules of 1993 vide Annexure - 1 dated 19.10.2009 along
with the others and the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.21.
The petitioner was granted promotion with effect from 01.04.2003 and
was also given all the monetary benefits of promotional post from
01.04.2003. The petitioner has no grievance so far as promotion from
the post of Grade I to Grade IV is concerned.
3. The learned counsel submits that another promotion was
granted to the petitioner along with others vide order dated 22.02.2019
as contained in Annexure - 2, the name of the petitioner appears at
serial no. 6 and he was granted promotion with effect from 01.04.2009
but monetary benefits for the intervening period from 01.04.2009 to
22.02.2019 has not been provided to the petitioner. The said
promotion was from Grade IV to Grade VII.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner attained
the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021 from the post of Headmaster-
cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer at Government Girls' Middle
School, Rampur, Mahuadanr within the district of Latehar.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner became
eligible for promotion in terms of the Rules of 1993 but was not
granted promotion for the reasons best known to the respondents and
therefore, once the promotion was granted to the petitioner with
retrospective effect the petitioner cannot be denied the financial
benefits arising out of such promotion. The learned counsel has relied
upon the following judgments:
(i) 1990 (1) BLJR 648 Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. the State
of Bihar para no.18,19,20,22 and 23
(ii) 2020 (3) JBCJ State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Dinesh
Chand Mahto para nos.12, 20, 21, 27 and 28
(iii) 2010 (3) JLJR 185 Suryadeo Prasad Vs. The State of
Jharkhand Para no.13 to 15
(iv) 2003 (3) BBCJ 564 Md. Hafiz Vs. the State of Bihar
(v) W.P.(S) No. 1932/2015 Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. The State
of Jharkhand
6. So far as the other writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6028 of 2022
is concerned, he submits that similar issue is involved in the said case.
The petitioner nos.1 to 6 were given Grade IV promotion with effect
from 01.04.2004, 01.04.2004, 01.04.2003, 01.04.2004, 01.04.2004
and 01.04.2003 respectively and Grade VII promotion with effect
from 01.04.2012, 01.04.2010, 01.04.2009, 01.04.2010, 01.04.2013
and 01.04.2009 respectively. He submits that the promotion from
grade IV to Grade VII was granted vide Notification dated 22.02.2019
with retrospective date but financial benefits have not been granted.
He submits that identical issues are involved in both these cases.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer
of the petitioners and has submitted that the judgments relied upon by
the petitioners do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
The learned counsel has further referred to Rule 58 of Jharkhand
Service Code and Rule 74 of the Financial Rules to submit that
incumbent is not entitled for monetary benefits of the promotional
post unless he joins in the cadre. The learned counsel has also relied
upon the judgment passed in Appeal (Civil) No.5573 of 2006 (State of
Uttaranchal and another Vs. Dinesh Kumar sharma) as annexed
with Annexure - E of the counter affidavit and also judgment dated
08.03.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam in Civil Appeal No.517-518 of
2017 (Annexure - F) to the counter affidavit of W.P.(S) No.393 of
2023. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph no.20 of the
judgment at page no.55 of the counter affidavit to submit that the
petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefit. The learned counsel has
also referred to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Op. Gupta reported in (1996) 7 SCC
533 paragraph no.6 and also the judgment in the case of State of
Haryana and another Vs. S.K. Khosla and others reported in (2007)
15 SCC 777 which has followed the judgment reported in (1996) 7
SCC 533.
8. The learned counsel has also referred to the orders passed by
the authority as annexed with the counter affidavit to submit that a
policy decision has been taken vide memo no.1145 dated 18.07.2019
that only notional promotion will be granted with retrospective date.
The learned counsel has also submitted that the entire background in
connection with grant of promotion has been discussed in Order
No.619 dated 26.08.2021 annexed with Annexure - D to the counter
affidavit.
9. Post this case for further dictation on 09.04.2024 at 2.15 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
