Satish Chandra Shrivastava Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/76668
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnAug-24-2016
AppellantSatish Chandra Shrivastava
RespondentJharkhand State Electricity Bo
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w.p (s) no. 607 of 2010 satish chandra shrivastava ...… petitioner versus 1. jharkhand state electricity board, through its chairman, ranchi.2. secretary, jharkhand state electricity board, ranchi. ...… respondents -------- coram : the hon’ble mr. justice h. c. mishra ------ for the petitioner : mr. manoj tandon, advocate mr. saurav shekhar, advocate for the respondents : mr. ram subhag singh, advocate. ------ 8/24.8.2016 heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, jharkhand state electricity board, now jharkhand urja vikas nigam limited.2. the petitioner joined the services of the then state electricity board on 5.2.1973 as an assistant engineer. in course of his service, the petitioner was given promotions on the higher posts and ultimately, he was posted as electrical superintending engineer with effect from 26.6.2007. upon completion of two years of his service, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of electrical chief engineer with effect from 27.6.2009. the petitioner ultimately superannuated from the post of electrical superintending engineer on 31.10.2009 without being promoted to the post of electrical chief engineer and it is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the post being available for his promotion, the petitioner was not given due promotion during his service tenure.3. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the denial of due promotion to the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and is violative of articles 14 & 16 of the constitution of india. learned counsel has pointed out from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent jharkhand state electricity board, wherein the vacancy position in the cadre of electrical chief engineer has been shown as on 30.4.2009. it is stated in the counter affidavit that there were 14 sanctioned posts of electrical chief engineer in the electricity board, out of which, 09 posts belonged to the general category, 01 post belonged to the s.c. category and 04 posts belonged to the s.t. category. against this sanctioned strength, 05 officers were posted in general category, 03 officers were posted in s.c. category and 03 officers were posted in s.t. category. thus, there were only three vacancies as on 30.4.2009, out of which, there were 04 vacancies in general category, 02 officers were posted extra in s.c. category and 01 vacancy in s.t. category. -2- 4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that there were four vacancies in general category, the case of the petitioner ought to have considered for promotion to the post of electrical chief engineer, as the petitioner was the third man in seniority, entitled to be promoted, but the promotion was not made till the retirement of the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for a directing the respondents to give the notional promotion to the petitioner on the post of electrical chief engineer with effect from 27.6.2009, till the date of his retirement with all the monetary benefits.5. learned counsel for the jharkhand urja vikas nigam limited, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out from the counter affidavit that as on 30.4.2009 though there were four vacancies in general category, but two officers were working extra in scheduled caste category and the resultant vacancies in the cadre were only three posts. against these three posts, one post was kept reserved for s.t category and one post was kept for promotion of sri a.k. trivedi, who was senior to the petitioner. there was only one vacancy meant for general category, against which, sri b.k. sinha who was also senior to the petitioner was given promotion on 24.11.2009.6. learned counsel for the jharkhand urja vikas nigam limited has also pointed out from the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner was to be considered after sri b.k. sinha, as the petitioner was 3 rd in seniority, but his case could not be considered, in view of the fact that there was no vacancy in the cadre during the service period of the petitioner. learned counsel has pointed out from the counter affidavit that due to the excess posting of two officers belonging to s.c. category, there were only 03 vacancies in the cadre, out of which 01 post was reserved for s.t. category, one post was kept reserved for an officer senior to the petitioner and on the remaining post sri b.k. sinha, the other officer senior to the petitioner was promoted on 24.11.2009. accordingly, it is submitted that there was no post available for promotion of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner was not promoted as chief engineer.7. learned counsel for the jharkhand urja vikas nigam limited, however, could not satisfy the court with any cogent reason as to why two officers in excess to the sanctioned strength, were posted as electrical chief engineer in s.c. category. no case has been made out by the respondent jharkhand urja vikas nigam limited, for denying the promotion to the petitioner on any other ground, except the ground of non-availability of the post, which admittedly was due to the fact that two officers in s.c. category were posted in excess to the sanctioned strength. -3- 8. having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, i am of the considered view that the petitioner was denied his due promotion only due to the fact that two officers in s.c. category were posted as electrical chief engineer in excess to the sanctioned strength, for which, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible by any stretch of imagination. it was only due to this fact that the petitioner was denied his due promotion with effect from 27.6.2009 during the tenure of his service. as stated above, no case is made out by the respondents that the denial of the promotion to the petitioner was due to any reason, other than the non availability of the post due to posting of two officers in excess of the sanctioned strength in s.c. category. as such, it is apparent that the petitioner was deprived of his due promotion during the tenure of his service, absolutely illegally and arbitrarily, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.9. in view of the aforementioned discussions and in view of the fact that the petitioner has since retired on 31.10.2009 itself, the respondent authorities of jharkhand urja vikas nigam limited are directed to give notional promotion to the petitioner to the post of electrical chief engineer with effect from 27.6.2009, with actual payments of all the monetary benefits pre and post retirement, positively within the period of three months from the date of production / communication of this order.10. this writ application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above. ( h. c. mishra, j.) bs/
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 607 of 2010 Satish Chandra Shrivastava ...… Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Ranchi.

2. Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi. ...… Respondents -------- CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Saurav Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, Advocate. ------ 8/24.8.2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the then State Electricity Board on 5.2.1973 as an Assistant Engineer. In course of his service, the petitioner was given promotions on the higher posts and ultimately, he was posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer with effect from 26.6.2007. Upon completion of two years of his service, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Electrical Chief Engineer with effect from 27.6.2009. The petitioner ultimately superannuated from the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer on 31.10.2009 without being promoted to the post of Electrical Chief Engineer and it is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the post being available for his promotion, the petitioner was not given due promotion during his service tenure.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the denial of due promotion to the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has pointed out from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board, wherein the vacancy position in the cadre of Electrical Chief Engineer has been shown as on 30.4.2009. It is stated in the counter affidavit that there were 14 sanctioned posts of Electrical Chief Engineer in the Electricity Board, out of which, 09 posts belonged to the General Category, 01 post belonged to the S.C. Category and 04 posts belonged to the S.T. Category. Against this sanctioned strength, 05 officers were posted in General Category, 03 officers were posted in S.C. Category and 03 officers were posted in S.T. Category. Thus, there were only three vacancies as on 30.4.2009, out of which, there were 04 vacancies in General Category, 02 officers were posted extra in S.C. Category and 01 vacancy in S.T. Category. -2- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that there were four vacancies in General Category, the case of the petitioner ought to have considered for promotion to the post of Electrical Chief Engineer, as the petitioner was the third man in seniority, entitled to be promoted, but the promotion was not made till the retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for a directing the respondents to give the notional promotion to the petitioner on the post of Electrical Chief Engineer with effect from 27.6.2009, till the date of his retirement with all the monetary benefits.

5. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out from the counter affidavit that as on 30.4.2009 though there were four vacancies in General Category, but two officers were working extra in Scheduled Caste Category and the resultant vacancies in the cadre were only three posts. Against these three posts, one post was kept reserved for S.T category and one post was kept for promotion of Sri A.K. Trivedi, who was senior to the petitioner. There was only one vacancy meant for General Category, against which, Sri B.K. Sinha who was also senior to the petitioner was given promotion on 24.11.2009.

6. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited has also pointed out from the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner was to be considered after Sri B.K. Sinha, as the petitioner was 3 rd in seniority, but his case could not be considered, in view of the fact that there was no vacancy in the cadre during the service period of the petitioner. Learned counsel has pointed out from the counter affidavit that due to the excess posting of two officers belonging to S.C. Category, there were only 03 vacancies in the cadre, out of which 01 post was reserved for S.T. Category, one post was kept reserved for an officer senior to the petitioner and on the remaining post Sri B.K. Sinha, the other officer senior to the petitioner was promoted on 24.11.2009. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was no post available for promotion of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner was not promoted as Chief Engineer.

7. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, however, could not satisfy the Court with any cogent reason as to why two officers in excess to the sanctioned strength, were posted as Electrical Chief Engineer in S.C. Category. No case has been made out by the respondent Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, for denying the promotion to the petitioner on any other ground, except the ground of non-availability of the post, which admittedly was due to the fact that two officers in S.C. Category were posted in excess to the sanctioned strength. -3- 8. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner was denied his due promotion only due to the fact that two officers in S.C. Category were posted as Electrical Chief Engineer in excess to the sanctioned strength, for which, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible by any stretch of imagination. It was only due to this fact that the petitioner was denied his due promotion with effect from 27.6.2009 during the tenure of his service. As stated above, no case is made out by the respondents that the denial of the promotion to the petitioner was due to any reason, other than the non availability of the post due to posting of two Officers in excess of the sanctioned strength in S.C. Category. As such, it is apparent that the petitioner was deprived of his due promotion during the tenure of his service, absolutely illegally and arbitrarily, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

9. In view of the aforementioned discussions and in view of the fact that the petitioner has since retired on 31.10.2009 itself, the respondent authorities of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited are directed to give notional promotion to the petitioner to the post of Electrical Chief Engineer with effect from 27.6.2009, with actual payments of all the monetary benefits pre and post retirement, positively within the period of three months from the date of production / communication of this order.

10. This writ application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/