Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Sahdeo Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3532 of 2008
------
Dr. Sahdeo Das, son of Late Bhaktu Das, resident of Village
Kumarbad, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, at present
posted as Homeopathic Compounder, at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Sinbhbhum.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Health
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Health Department, Main Secretariat, at Nepal
House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. Director, Ayus, Health Department, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi.
4. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Health Department,
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, AC to GA (Bihar)
Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
------
30/ 15.01.2025
By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has
sought for following reliefs:-
i. "For quashing order vide memo no. 16 / C-1-49 /
96 - 355 (Desi Chikitsha) Swasthya, Patna, dated
25.5.1998 (Annexure-12), whereby and
whereunder the representation filed by the
petitioner as directed by Hon'ble Patna High
Court for consideration of the petitioner's
promotion has been rejected.
ii. For direction to respondents to consider the case
of petitioner and to promote the petitioner w.e.f.
the date from which juniors to him have been
promoted i.e. from the year 1980 and also to
direct the respondents to give all consequential
benefits to the petitioner."
2. The petitioner seeks promotion from the post of
Homeopathic Mishrak to the post of Homeopathic Doctor
(Chikitsak). The petitioner is a homeopathy diploma holder who
seeks the aforesaid promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner has
superannuated from service.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Bihar & Ors. Vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath & Ors. reported in
(1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 334, has held that retrospective seniority
cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even
borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective
effect as that might adversely affect others.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its very recent judgment
in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal
Satpathi & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3512, has
held that it is a well settled principle that promotion becomes
effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a
vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have
recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a
statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no
fundamental right to the promotion itself.
It has further been held at para-21 that promotion only
becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the
promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy
or the date of recommendation.
5. In the aforesaid judgment, the relevant provisions of
Rule 54(1) (a) of the West Bengal Service Rules were considered,
as per which, a person shall not draw any higher pay than his
substantive pay in respect of the permanent post other than the
regular post unless the officiating appointment involves assumption
of duties.
6. Similar is the condition laid down under Rule 58 (a) of
The Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, which reads as follows:-
"58. (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made
in these rules and to the provisions of clause (b) of this
rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay
and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with
effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of
that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he
ceases to discharge those duties."
7. Thus, the provision of law provided in the Jharkhand
Service Code in Rule 58 (a) is similar to that of the Rules of West
Bengal which has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Thus, in my view, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
applicable in this case also.
8. Since the petitioner has superannuated, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant.Cp-2
