Parmanand Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/111039
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnSep-07-2017
AppellantParmanand Paswan
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Ors
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi    w.p.(s) no. 1009 of 2011 ….. parmanand paswan …. petitioner versus 1. the   state   of   jharkhand,   through   the   chief   secretary,  government   of   jharkhand,   project   building,   p.o.   dhurwa,   p.s.  jagarnathpur, district­ ranchi.2. the   finance   secretary   government   of   jharkhand,   project  building, p.o. dhurwa, p.s. jagarnathpur, district­ ranchi.3. the   principal   secretary,   water   resources   department,  government   of   jharkhand,   project   building,   p.o.   dhurwa,   p.s.  jagarnathpur, district­ ranchi.4. the secretary, rural development, government of jharkhand,  project building, p.o. dhurwa, p.s. jagarnathpur, district­ ranchi.5. the accountant general (a&e), jharkhand, p.o. & p.s. doranda,  district­ ranchi              ….     respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice dr. s.n. pathak3. for the petitioner : mr. birendra kumar, advocate for the respondents : mrs. richa sanchita, s.c. v th  16 / dated 7       september, 2017       the   petitioner   has   approached   this   court   with   a   prayer   for  quashing   the   notification   as   contained   in   memo   no.   4601/ranchi,  dated 22.11.2010 issued by under secretary, department of water  resources, government of jharkhand, whereby promotion granted to  petitioner   and  several  others  by the  state   of  bihar,  department  of  water resources, with effect from 01.01.1998 vide notification no.  2525,   dated   17.06.05,   issued   by   deputy   secretary,   department   of  water resources, government of bihar, has been canceled. factual matrix: the   petitioner   was   appointed   on   03.08.1989   as   a   junior  engineer, water resources department in government of bihar. it has  been stated that the petitioner having unblemished service record has  been   considered   and   granted   promotion   in   the   year   1998   much  before the bifurcation of the state of jharkhand f3.rom the erstwhile  state   of   bihar   but   the   final   allocation   of   the   cadre   of   the  staff   of  water   resources   department   took   place   between   jharkhand   and  2 bihar in the month of october, 2004 and the petitioner was allocated  jharkhand cadre. it   has   been   further   stated   that   government   of   bihar,  department   of   water   resources   vide   notification   no.   654/patna,  dated   25.01.2002,   promoted   altogether   63   diploma   holder   junior  engineer   (civil),   independent   charge   and   posted   with   effect   from  25.01.2002, and the copy of said notification has also been sent to  secretary,   water   resources   department,   government   of   jharkhand  with a direction to post all such diploma holder junior engineer as all  such   19   as   assistant   engineer   (civil)   as   independent   charge.  department   of   water   resources,   government   of   jharkhand   vide  notification   no.   2286,   dated   20­05­02,   the   petitioner   and   several  other   diploma   holder   junior   engineers   (civil),   have   been   given  independent current charge and posted as assistant engineer (civil)  in their own pay scale. the name of petitioner was at serial no. 16,  who has also been posted as assistant engineer. the petitioner along  with  other junior engineers were  considered for promotion  to the  post   of   assistant   engineer   with   effect   from   01.01.1998     vide  notification   no.   2525/patna,   dated   17.06.05   issued   by   water  resources department, government of bihar in which the name of  petitioner finds place at serial no. 56 out of 70 junior engineers who  were   promoted   to   the   post   of   assistant   engineer   with   effect   from  01.01.1998.   the   counterpart   of   the   petitioner   in   water   resources  department,   government   of   bihar   were   all   granted   promotion   to  junior engineers and monetary benefits was granted with effect from  01.01.1998. it is specific case of the petitioner that though the promotion  was   granted   legally   by   the   state   of   bihar,   the   state   of   jharkhand  canceled the said promotion vide notification no. 4601/ranchi dated  22.11.2010 issued by water resources department, government of  jharkhand and the name of petitioner finds place at serial no. 18. the  petitioner   represented   before   the   authorities   regarding   the  cancellation of the order of promotion but no heed was paid to the  representation and hence this writ petition has been preferred. 3 mr.   birendra   kumar,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner  emphatically   argues   that   petitioner   is   legitimately   entitled   to   the  same   treatment   like   his   counter   part   in   the   state   of   bihar   after  bifurcation of the state. there is  no illegality in the impugned order  and the petitioner was rightly considered for promotion along with  other similarly situated persons even the assistant engineers posted  in   the   state   of   bihar   have   been   granted   monetary   benefits   from  01.01.1998, the date on which the promotion was given effect to the  similarly   situated   persons.   learned   counsel   further   submits   that  taking   into   consideration   section   72   and   73   of   the   bihar  reorganization   act,   2000,   persons   serving   in   connection   with   the  affairs   of   the   union   or   the   state   provides   that   the   conditions   of  service applicable immediately before the appointed date in the case  of   any   person   deemed   to   have   been   allocated   to   the   state   of  jharkhand under section 72 shall not be varied to his disadvantage  and as such taking into consideration the aforesaid settled rules the  promotion   of   the   petitioner   is   fully   justified   and   the   cancellation  order is not tenable in the eyes of law. learned counsel further argues  that   even   assuming   that   the   promotion   was   illegally   granted   the  provisions of natural justice was not followed in cancellation of the  promotion   order   and   as   such   on   this   score   also   the   order   of  cancellation is illegal in the eye of law. per   contra,   counter­affidavit   has   been   filed.   mrs.   richa  sanchita, s.c. v argues that there is no illegality in the impugned  order,  after the cadre division and after bifurcation of the state of  bihar it has no jurisdiction to issue order of promotion to the persons  working in the jurisdiction of state of jharkhand. for all purposes the  services of the petitioner were allocated to the state of jharkhand.  state of jharkhand was the only competent authority to consider the  promotion   of   the   petitioner   and   wrongly   it   was   considered   and  granted by erstwhile state of bihar which is against the provisions of  reorganization act. learned counsel argues that section 72 and 73 is  not   attracted   in   the   case   of   petitioner   and   as   such   the   impugned  order is fully justified.  4 be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of  the parties, this court is of the considered view that the impugned  order   has   been   issued  without   following  the   cardinal   principles  of  natural justice. rightly after the bifurcation, the state of bihar has no  jurisdiction   to   consider  and pass  orders  for  promotion  but     to the  promotion which was already granted w.e.f 1998 and the petitioner  continued   working   on   the   said   post   for   five   long   years,   it   was  requirement of the service conditions that at least a show cause has  to   be   issued   to   the   petitioner   so   that   he   could   have   justified   the  promotion order. as no show cause was issued and the provisions of  natural justice was given a complete go by, the order as contained in  memo no. 4601/ranchi, dated 22.11.2010 is not sustainable in the  eyes of law and as such is hereby quashed and set aside. however  since the order of promotion was without jurisdiction the matter is  remanded   to   the   respondents­authorities   to   consider   the   case   of  petitioner   for   promotion   in   accordance   with   law.   in   view   of   that  already   a   press   release   was   issued   (annexure­a)   to   the   counter­ affidavit   dated   01.03.2011  for   consideration   of   those   persons  who  were granted promotion by the state of bihar. in view of the press  release and in view of the candid submission of the counsel for the  respondents that already a process has been initiated for considering  the case of petitioner for granting promotion to the post of assistant  engineer i hereby direct the respondents to constitute a d.p.c., giving  special consideration to these persons in view of the press release and  consider their case for promotion in accordance with law.  the entire exercise should be completed within a period of 8  weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. let it be made clear that consideration of promotion of other  persons and holding of d.p.c. for  other persons will not come in way  of consideration of promotion of the petitioner. with the aforesaid observations writ petition stands allowed.   (dr. s.n. pathak, j.) ­ pallavi/
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI    W.P.(S) No. 1009 of 2011 ….. Parmanand Paswan …. Petitioner Versus 1. The   State   of   Jharkhand,   through   the   Chief   Secretary,  Government   of   Jharkhand,   Project   Building,   P.O.   Dhurwa,   P.S.  Jagarnathpur, District­ Ranchi.

2. The   Finance   Secretary   Government   of   Jharkhand,   Project  Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District­ Ranchi.

3. The   Principal   Secretary,   Water   Resources   Department,  Government   of   Jharkhand,   Project   Building,   P.O.   Dhurwa,   P.S.  Jagarnathpur, District­ Ranchi.

4. The Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand,  Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District­ Ranchi.

5. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,  District­ Ranchi              ….     Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK3. For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, S.C. V th  16 / Dated 7       September, 2017       The   petitioner   has   approached   this   court   with   a   prayer   for  quashing   the   notification   as   contained   in   memo   no.   4601/Ranchi,  Dated 22.11.2010 issued by Under Secretary, Department of Water  Resources, Government of Jharkhand, whereby promotion granted to  petitioner   and  several  others  by the  State   of  Bihar,  Department  of  Water Resources, with effect from 01.01.1998 vide notification no.  2525,   dated   17.06.05,   issued   by   Deputy   Secretary,   Department   of  Water Resources, Government of Bihar, has been canceled. Factual Matrix: The   petitioner   was   appointed   on   03.08.1989   as   a   Junior  Engineer, water Resources Department in Government of Bihar. It has  been stated that the petitioner having unblemished service record has  been   considered   and   granted   promotion   in   the   year   1998   much  before the bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand f3.rom the erstwhile  State   of   Bihar   but   the   final   allocation   of   the   cadre   of   the  staff   of  Water   Resources   Department   took   place   between   Jharkhand   and  2 Bihar in the month of October, 2004 and the petitioner was allocated  Jharkhand Cadre. It   has   been   further   stated   that   Government   of   Bihar,  Department   of   Water   Resources   vide   notification   no.   654/Patna,  dated   25.01.2002,   promoted   altogether   63   Diploma   holder   Junior  Engineer   (Civil),   independent   charge   and   posted   with   effect   from  25.01.2002, and the copy of said notification has also been sent to  Secretary,   Water   Resources   Department,   Government   of   Jharkhand  with a direction to post all such diploma holder Junior Engineer as all  such   19   as   Assistant   Engineer   (Civil)   as   Independent   charge.  Department   of   Water   Resources,   Government   of   Jharkhand   vide  notification   no.   2286,   dated   20­05­02,   the   petitioner   and   several  other   Diploma   Holder   Junior   Engineers   (Civil),   have   been   given  independent current charge and posted as Assistant Engineer (civil)  in their own pay scale. The name of petitioner was at Serial No. 16,  who has also been posted as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner along  with  other Junior Engineers were  considered for promotion  to the  post   of   Assistant   Engineer   with   effect   from   01.01.1998     vide  notification   no.   2525/Patna,   dated   17.06.05   issued   by   Water  Resources Department, Government of Bihar in which the name of  petitioner finds place at serial no. 56 out of 70 Junior Engineers who  were   promoted   to   the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer   with   effect   from  01.01.1998.   The   counterpart   of   the   petitioner   in   Water   Resources  Department,   Government   of   Bihar   were   all   granted   promotion   to  Junior Engineers and monetary benefits was granted with effect from  01.01.1998. It is specific case of the petitioner that though the promotion  was   granted   legally   by   the   State   of   Bihar,   the   State   of   Jharkhand  canceled the said promotion vide notification no. 4601/Ranchi dated  22.11.2010 issued by Water Resources Department, Government of  Jharkhand and the name of petitioner finds place at serial no. 18. The  petitioner   represented   before   the   authorities   regarding   the  cancellation of the order of promotion but no heed was paid to the  representation and hence this writ petition has been preferred. 3 Mr.   Birendra   Kumar,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner  emphatically   argues   that   petitioner   is   legitimately   entitled   to   the  same   treatment   like   his   counter   part   in   the   state   of   Bihar   after  bifurcation of the State. There is  no illegality in the impugned order  and the petitioner was rightly considered for promotion along with  other similarly situated persons even the Assistant Engineers posted  in   the   state   of   Bihar   have   been   granted   monetary   benefits   from  01.01.1998, the date on which the promotion was given effect to the  similarly   situated   persons.   Learned   counsel   further   submits   that  taking   into   consideration   Section   72   and   73   of   the   Bihar  Reorganization   Act,   2000,   persons   serving   in   connection   with   the  affairs   of   the   Union   or   the   State   provides   that   the   conditions   of  service applicable immediately before the appointed date in the case  of   any   person   deemed   to   have   been   allocated   to   the   State   of  Jharkhand under section 72 shall not be varied to his disadvantage  and as such taking into consideration the aforesaid settled rules the  promotion   of   the   petitioner   is   fully   justified   and   the   cancellation  order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues  that   even   assuming   that   the   promotion   was   illegally   granted   the  provisions of natural justice was not followed in cancellation of the  promotion   order   and   as   such   on   this   score   also   the   order   of  cancellation is illegal in the eye of law. Per   contra,   counter­affidavit   has   been   filed.   Mrs.   Richa  Sanchita, S.C. V argues that there is no illegality in the impugned  order,  after the cadre division and after bifurcation of the state of  Bihar it has no jurisdiction to issue order of promotion to the persons  working in the jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand. For all purposes the  services of the petitioner were allocated to the state of Jharkhand.  State of Jharkhand was the only competent authority to consider the  promotion   of   the   petitioner   and   wrongly   it   was   considered   and  granted by erstwhile State of Bihar which is against the provisions of  Reorganization Act. Learned counsel argues that section 72 and 73 is  not   attracted   in   the   case   of   petitioner   and   as   such   the   impugned  order is fully justified.  4 Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of  the parties, this court is of the considered view that the impugned  order   has   been   issued  without   following  the   cardinal   principles  of  natural justice. Rightly after the bifurcation, the state of Bihar has no  jurisdiction   to   consider  and pass  orders  for  promotion  but     to the  promotion which was already granted w.e.f 1998 and the petitioner  continued   working   on   the   said   post   for   five   long   years,   it   was  requirement of the service conditions that at least a show cause has  to   be   issued   to   the   petitioner   so   that   he   could   have   justified   the  promotion order. As no show cause was issued and the provisions of  natural justice was given a complete go by, the order as contained in  memo no. 4601/Ranchi, dated 22.11.2010 is not sustainable in the  eyes of law and as such is hereby quashed and set aside. However  since the order of promotion was without jurisdiction the matter is  remanded   to   the   respondents­authorities   to   consider   the   case   of  petitioner   for   promotion   in   accordance   with   law.   In   view   of   that  already   a   press   release   was   issued   (Annexure­A)   to   the   counter­ affidavit   dated   01.03.2011  for   consideration   of   those   persons  who  were granted promotion by the State of Bihar. In view of the Press  release and in view of the candid submission of the counsel for the  respondents that already a process has been initiated for considering  the case of petitioner for granting promotion to the post of Assistant  Engineer I hereby direct the respondents to constitute a D.P.C., giving  special consideration to these persons in view of the press release and  consider their case for promotion in accordance with law.  The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 8  weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that consideration of promotion of other  persons and holding of D.P.C. for  other persons will not come in way  of consideration of promotion of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations writ petition stands allowed.   (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) ­ Pallavi/