Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh Thakaur vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6886 of 2023
Ganesh Thakaur, aged about 57 years, S/o Shiv Shankar Thakur, resident of
Ward No. 08, Village-Chechariya, P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. +
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Regional Deputy Director, Palamu, Palamu Division, Medininagar, P.O.
& P.S. Medininagar, District Palamu, Jharkhand
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, resident at Collectrate Building,
Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Grahwa, District GArhwa, Jharkhand
4. The District Superintendent of Education Garhwa resident of Collectrate
Building, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
And
W.P. (S) No. 6889 of 2023
Anil Kumar Vishwakarma, aged about 54 years, S/o Krishna Mistri, resident of
Ward No. 06, Village-Sareh, P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. +
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Regional Deputy Director, Palamu, Palamu Division, Medininagar, P.O.
& P.S. Medininagar, District Palamu, Jharkhand
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, resident at Collectrate Building,
Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, Jharkhand
4. The District Superintendent of Education Garhwa resident of Collectrate
Building, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
And
W.P. (S) No. 6892 of 2023
1
Sanjay Kumar, aged about 54 years, S/o Ram Sewak, resident of Main Road,
Thana More, Bhawanathpur, P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. +
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Regional Deputy Director, Palamu, Palamu Division, Medininagar, P.O.
& P.S. Medininagar, District Palamu, Jharkhand
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, resident at Collectrate Building,
Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, Jharkhand
4. The District Superintendent of Education Garhwa resident of Collectrate
Building, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
(In all the cases)
For the State : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
(In WPS No. 6886/2023)
: Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate
(In WPS No. 6889/2023)
: Mr. Ravi Kerketta, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Anand, Advocate
(In WPS No. 6892/2023)
---
st
08/1 May 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs: -
"i. For issuance of an appropriate Writ (s) / Order(s)/direction(s) or a
writ particular in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
respondents specifically respondent No.03 & 04, for considering the case
for promotion of petitioner from Grade-IV to Grade-VII with effect from
29.06.2013 with all consequential benefits whereby and whereunder
Juniors to the petitioner has already been promoted to the post In Grade-
VII with effect from 29.06.2013 vide letter No. 1025 dated
29.06.2013(Annexure-04).
ii. That the petitioner further for prays for issuance of an appropriate
Writ(s)/ Order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particular in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the part of Letter No.92 dated 19.01.2015
(Annexure-02) passed by Respondent No.-04 in which respondent has
given promotion to petitioner to Grade-IV from the date of his joining i.e.
28.01.2015 whereas the petitioner has entitled for the promotion in
Grade-IV with effect from 26.02.2007 whereby and whereunder the
Juniors to the petitioner has already been promoted in Grade-IV with
effect from 26.02.2007.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s)/direction(s) or a
writ particular in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
respondents specifically respondent No.03 & 04 for shifting the date of
promotion of petitioner in Grade-IV from 28.01.2015 to 26.02.2007 when
the Juniors to the petitioner namely Arun Kumar Mehta and Vijay Kumar
Tiwari had promoted in Grade-IV with effect from 26.02.2007 along with
consequential benefit.
AND/OR
Any other appropriate Writ/Writs be issued, order/orders be passed
direction/directions be made as your Lordships may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstance of the case for doing conscionable justice
to the petitioner."
3. A counter-affidavit is already on record in W.P. (S) No. 6886 of 2023.
4. So far as W.P. (S) No. 6889 of 2023 and W.P. (S) No. 6892 of 2023 are
concerned, a counter-affidavit has been filed in both the cases during the court
proceeding, which is taken on record.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that identical stand
has been taken in the counter-affidavits which have been filed today.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no
need to file any rejoinder to the counter-affidavits filed today during the course
of court proceeding and he is ready to argue the case. He submits that the
petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. (S) No.
6886/2023 and he would refer to the same rejoinder for the other two writ
petitions also , to which the learned counsel for the respondents has no
objection.
7. Accordingly, the rejoinder filed in W.P. (S) No. 6886 of 2023 will be
considered for the purposes of other two writ petitions.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners
were appointed on 28.10.1994 and were untrained teachers. The appointment
of the petitioner was with many other persons including one Arun Kumar
Mehta and Vijay Kumar Tiwary. He submits that some of them were trained
and some of them were untrained. The learned counsel submits that those who
were trained at the time of joining were granted promotion in Grade-IV with
effect from 26.02.2007 by counting their initial date of appointment in Grade-I
as 28.10.1994. He submits that the petitioners, namely, Ganesh Thakur and
Anil Kumar Vishwakarma undertook training as per the norms of the
respondents and completed the training in the year 1997-98 and the petitioner,
namely, Sanjay Kumar completed the training in the year 1998-99. The result
was published on 03.05.2002 and thereafter he claimed promotion in Grade-IV
and Grade VII.
9. He submits that vide judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.
638/2006 (Arun Sinha vs. State of Jharkhand & Others) dated 04.04.2008, it
has been held that all the appointees of the year 1994 and 1999-2000 were to be
given Grade-I right from the date of appointment. He submits that the
respondents have issued their circular and the petitioner is entitled to
promotion in Grade-IV from 26.02.2007 and Grade-VII from 29.06.2013. The
learned counsel submits that similarly situated persons including juniors have
been given due promotion in Grade-IV with effect from 26.02.2007 and Grade-
VII with effect from 29.06.2013 but such benefit has been denied to the
petitioners.
10. The learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by this Court in
W.P. (S) No. 5938/2007 (Ravi Shankar Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand &
Others) dated 27.06.2018 and also order passed in WP. (S) No. 378 of 2018
(Ravindra Kumar Ojha vs. State of Jharkhand & Others) dated 17.07.2023 to
submit that in the case of Ravi Shankar Kumar, this Court has been pleased to
quash the part of the order as contained in memo No. 92 dated 19.01.2015 to
the extent it related to granting promotion to Grade-IV to the petitioner of the
said case with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in
Grade-IV with effect from 26.02.2007 and Grade-VII with effect from
29.06.2013 on the dates, juniors to petitioner have been granted promotion with
all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
11. The learned counsel has submitted that he has come to know that order
dated 27.06.2018 passed in the case of Ravi Shankar Kumar (supra) has been
duly complied and he has been granted promotion with effect from 26.02.2007
in Grade-IV and with effect from 29.06.2013 in Grade-VII, but the promotion
has only been notionally granted.
12. He submits that two juniors of the petitioner, namely, Arun Kumar
Mehta and Vijay Kumar Tiwary have also been granted similar promotions but
the case of the petitioner has been left out and in such circumstances, similar
order as passed in the case of Ravi Shankar Kumar (supra) be passed in these
cases.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute
the fact that juniors to the petitioners have been granted promotion in Grade-IV
with effect from 26.02.2007 and Grade-VII with effect from 29.06.2013
notionally. However, he submits that the case of the petitioners was not
considered along with other persons as the issue was under consideration by
this Court in L.P.A. No. 214 of 2008 which ultimately got settled in the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 5520-
5522/2013 which was dismissed on 08.03.2013.
14. The learned counsel submits that at best the petitioners could be entitled
for notional promotion, there is no question of any grant of consequential back
wages as the petitioners have not joined the post from a retrospective date.
15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, it appears that juniors to the petitioners have
been granted notional promotion in Grade-IV with effect from 26.02.2007 and
Grade-VII from 29.06.2013, but the case of the petitioners was left out in view
of the fact that the petitioners were untrained at the time of their initial
appointment and the issue got settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
(C) No. 5520-5522/2013 on 08.03.2013. The said S.L.P. filed against
judgement passed in L.P.A. No. 214 of 2008 was ultimately dismissed.
16. It appears that the persons, namely, Ravi Shankar Kumar who was
similarly situated as that of the petitioners had moved this Court in W.P. (S)
No. 5938/2017 and had challenged the letter No. 92 dated 19.01.2015 wherein
promotion was granted from Grade-II to Grade-IV from the date of joining
although he claimed for promotion in Grade-IV post from 26.02.2007 i.e. the
date on which the juniors to the petitioner of the said case have been promoted
in Grade-IV with all consequential benefits. This Court ultimately considering
the entire facts and circumstances passed the following order: -
In the instant case, pick and choose method has been adopted and as
such, the petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date on which the
juniors to him have been considered taking into account the date of
initial appointment and not date of completion of the training. The
petitioner is much senior to the candidates, who have been granted
promotion w.e.f. 26.02.2007 and is placed higher in the seniority list i.e.
at Sl No. 15, which is never been disputed by the respondents.
As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules and guidelines, I am of the
considered view that the case of the petitioner ought to have been
considered and the part of the order at Annexure 3, i.e. Memo No. 92
dated 19.01.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside so far as it relates to
the petitioner granting promotion to Grade IV. The respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in Grade IV
w.e.f 26.02.2007 and Grade VII w.e.f 26.06.2013 on the dates, juniors to
the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion with all
consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of."
17. It is further not in dispute that L.P.A. No. 349/2021 filed against the
order dated 27.06.2018 passed in W.P. (s) No. 5938/2017 has been dismissed
by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2023.
18. This Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners is
similarly situated as that of Ravi Shankar Kumar and that part of the order
contained in Memo No. 92 dated 19.01.2015 is hereby quashed and set-aside
so far it relate to the petitioners granting promotion to Grade-IV from the date
of joining.
19. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for
promotion in Grade-IV with effect from 26.02.2007 and Grade-VII with effect
from 29.06.2013 on the dates when juniors to the petitioners were granted
promotion.
20. So far as consequential benefits is concerned, the same is required to be
considered in the light of the various circulars and norms of the respondents as
the matter relates to grant of notional promotion to the petitioners and if one or
the other similarly situated persons including Ravi Shankar Kumar has been
given any consequential benefits there can be no reason to deny similar
benefits to the petitioners if they are similarly situated . It has been submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has come to know that order
dated 27.06.2018 passed in the case of Ravi Shankar Kumar (supra) has been
duly complied and he has been granted promotion with effect from 26.02.2007
in Grade-IV and with effect from 29.06.2013 in Grade-VII, but the promotion
has only been notionally granted.
21. These writ petitions are hereby disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
22. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
