Sri A.K. Basak and ors. and the State of Bihar Vs. Bishwanath Prasad Pandey and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service laws - promotion--seniority--determination of--four cases pending to determine seniority--tribunal constituted to look into service dispute--seniority for promotion determined. - - the court cannot help putting in an observation that thousands of cases of state employees pass through the high court on petty metters of increments and promotions, when these matters can clearly be sorted out within the administration. perhaps, the respondents forgot that the high court is a superior court of record and a court of equity, justice and good conscience and any order awarded by the learned judge was on the basis of equity, justice and good conscience and this appellate division finds it a good order without any error. ravi s. dhavan, c.j. 1. there are two letters patent appeals, one is by the state of bihar and other is by the officers who are party respondents in the writ petition. the writ petition is cwjc no. 7644 of 1995. it was decided on 15-11-1996. 2. the state of bihar challenges the merit of the decision. the other set of respondents who have filed the letters' patent appeal are officers of the state but have done so in their personal capacity, as they are aggrieved by costs which has been awarded by the learned judge against each of them @ 1000/- each. the total cost is rs. 5,000/-. 3. the issue in the writ petition was not as fresh that it was brought in 1996 for the first time. the petitioner bishwanath prasad pandey was claiming his promotion and in fact had to come to the high court on three occasions. these cases were cwjc no. 7076 of 1994, mjc no. 735 of 1995 (this was a contempt case) and cwjc no. 7644 of 1995 i.e. the writ petition against the decision on which the present letter patent appeal arises. there is a fourth case. this is cwjc no. 233 of 1999 in which another state employee had desired an exercise, claiming seniority consequentially regarding promotion. in this case the seniority of the petitioner bishwanath prasad pandey's was also reckoned. regarding, petitioner bishwanath prasad pandey, seniority was checked and re-checked virtually four times. the decision of the learned judge, in effect, is that the state respondents applied two standards to reckon seniority and they did so as it suited the administration. this aspect is noticed in paragraph 7 of the judgment. 4. in so far as the judgment is concerned neither anything has been submitted nor the court notices any error in the order of the learned judge so as to set aside the judgment. the court cannot help putting in an observation that thousands of cases of state employees pass through the high court on petty metters of increments and promotions, when these matters can clearly be sorted out within the administration. a state tribunal to take care of service matters had been established but for the one reason or the other it has been rendered defunct. the government of bihar has frustrated the functioning of this tribunal, constituted under the bihar administrative tribunal act, 1981. not finding a forum to take care of their grievances the employees perhaps feel that the high court may be the place where they might get instant justice not realising that their cases get lined up as pending cases. 5. the tour cases mentioned in paragraph 3 had sorted out the issues. this court is not about to unsettle settled matters. 6. the court did make one inquiry from the learned state counsel g. p. 9 whether the promotion which has been granted to the petitioner bishwanath prasad pandey was such a promotion that he may have stepped over others why may be senior to him. learned state counsel submitted that this is not so as he has not superseded any body senior to him. thus, the court need not inquire anything further. in fact, bishwanath prasad pandey has retired and keeping in mind that he did not supersede any one, his promotion ought not to be unsettled. in his case in his retirement he cannot be downgraded when there was no irregularity in his promotion. on the harassment caused to him the court can hardly certify that it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned judge to award costs. perhaps, the respondents forgot that the high court is a superior court of record and a court of equity, justice and good conscience and any order awarded by the learned judge was on the basis of equity, justice and good conscience and this appellate division finds it a good order without any error. 7. the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment:

Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J.

1. There are two Letters Patent Appeals, one is by the State of Bihar and other is by the Officers who are party respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition is CWJC No. 7644 of 1995. It was decided on 15-11-1996.

2. The State of Bihar challenges the merit of the decision. The other set of respondents who have filed the Letters' Patent Appeal are officers of the State but have done so in their personal capacity, as they are aggrieved by costs which has been awarded by the learned Judge against each of them @ 1000/- each. The total cost is Rs. 5,000/-.

3. The issue in the writ petition was not as fresh that it was brought in 1996 for the first time. The petitioner Bishwanath Prasad Pandey was claiming his promotion and in fact had to come to the High Court on three occasions. These cases were CWJC No. 7076 of 1994, MJC No. 735 of 1995 (this was a contempt case) and CWJC No. 7644 of 1995 i.e. the writ petition against the decision on which the present Letter Patent Appeal arises. There is a fourth case. This is CWJC No. 233 of 1999 in which another State employee had desired an exercise, claiming seniority consequentially regarding promotion. In this case the seniority of the petitioner Bishwanath Prasad Pandey's was also reckoned. Regarding, petitioner Bishwanath Prasad Pandey, seniority was checked and re-checked virtually four times. The decision of the learned Judge, in effect, is that the State respondents applied two standards to reckon seniority and they did so as it suited the administration. This aspect is noticed in paragraph 7 of the judgment.

4. In so far as the judgment is concerned neither anything has been submitted nor the Court notices any error in the order of the learned Judge so as to set aside the judgment. The Court cannot help putting in an observation that thousands of cases of State employees pass through the High Court on petty metters of increments and promotions, when these matters can clearly be sorted out within the administration. A State Tribunal to take care of service matters had been established but for the one reason or the other it has been rendered defunct. The Government of Bihar has frustrated the functioning of this Tribunal, constituted under the Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. Not finding a forum to take care of their grievances the employees perhaps feel that the High Court may be the place where they might get instant justice not realising that their cases get lined up as pending cases.

5. The tour cases mentioned in paragraph 3 had sorted out the issues. This Court is not about to unsettle settled matters.

6. The Court did make one inquiry from the learned State Counsel G. P. 9 whether the promotion which has been granted to the petitioner Bishwanath Prasad Pandey was such a promotion that he may have stepped over others why may be senior to him. Learned State Counsel submitted that this is not so as he has not superseded any body senior to him. Thus, the Court need not inquire anything further. In fact, Bishwanath Prasad Pandey has retired and keeping in mind that he did not supersede any one, his promotion ought not to be unsettled. In his case in his retirement he cannot be downgraded when there was no irregularity in his promotion. On the harassment caused to him the Court can hardly certify that it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Judge to award costs. Perhaps, the respondents forgot that the High Court is a superior Court of record and a Court of equity, justice and good conscience and any order awarded by the learned Judge was on the basis of equity, justice and good conscience and this Appellate Division finds it a good order without any error.

7. The appeals are dismissed.