MURARI KRISHNA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the seven petitioners in this writ application have already been promoted from the post of Sub -Inspector of Police or equivalent post to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide order dated 14.8.1985 contained in Annexure -3 but their grievance is that such promotion should have been made available to them with effect from 31.12.1981 instead of 1984. as given by Annexure -3.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is not pressing this writ application on behalf of the petitioner no.1, Murari Krishna Prasad Sinha, for the reason that he has been granted necessary relief by the departmental authorities. So far as other petitioners are concerned, admittedly, all of them have now retired from service from the post of Dy. S.P. and in case their claim is allowed, they would be at best entitled only to monetary benefits. As per facts given in the writ petition promotions considered by the Board in the year 1981. and in the year 1984 were on the basis of a seniority list of Inspectors of Police and other equivalent posts prepared on the basis of continuous officiation on the post of Inspector. On the basis of a judgment of this Court dated 17.1.1986, it has been shown that the said criteria for seniority did not find favour with this Court and accordingly, subsequent seniority list was prepared on the basis of date of confirmation in accordance with service rules.

(3.) PETITIONERS case is that in the subsequent seniority list prepared on the basis of confirmation as contained in An -nexure -4, the petitioners are at higher places than those at serial 259 to 265 who were Sergeant Majors and were confirmed after the petitioners in the year 1981 on different dates. The petitioners grievance is that persons at serial 259. to 265 were promoted to the post of Dy. S.P. with effect from 31.12.1981 ignoring the claim of the petitioners who were their seniors as per seniority list contained in Annexure -4. By refering to column 5 in Annexure -4, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even as per dates of their continuous officiation on the post of Inspectors, the petitioners had to be treated senior to those at serial 259 to 265 in Annexure -4. Thus, according to petitioners, they were senior to some of the persons promoted to the post of Dy. S.P. in the year 1981 by application of any of the principles of seniority be it date of continuous officiation or date of confirmation.