AKHAURY DADAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that during pendency of the writ petition, an amendment petition was filed. Opportunity was granted to the respondents to file further counter affidavit. The same has been filed. Heard. Amendment petition is allowed. As the pleadings are complete, the case has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself with consent of parties.

(2.) Petitioner was selected as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and upon confirmation of his service in regular establishment, on 26.2.1980, he was made Incharge, Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Nawada. While so, State published the final gradation list of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in the Department of Public Health and Engineering (PHED). The petitioner found that his junior was shown as his senior in the gradation list which was wrongly prepared by the State. This led to litigation as between the petitioner, the said junior and the State and the matter ultimately travelled to the Apex Court. The Apex Court, by the judgment and order dated 4.12.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 1997, set aside the judgment of learned single Judge and Division Bench of this Court and allowed the appeal in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was senior to the said Vishwanath Jha. Upon petitioner's filing representation, a revised gradation list was published in which now the petitioner was shown at serial No. 2. This gradation list was ultimately published on 3.12.2002. Petitioner, in the meantime, has been seeking his regular promotion which was due over 20 years back. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the petitioner had already been made Incharge, Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in 1980 itself. After having won the long battle against the State, one expected that petitioner would be given his due credit but again that was not to be. For some reason, even though petitioner was upgraded in the final gradation list as per directive of the Apex Court, the matter of recommending petitioner's name for promotion was kept pending on one pretext or the other and on one pretence or the other till petitioner ultimately superannuated on 31.7.2003 and, thereafter the matter of promotion was sent to Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) excluding the name of petitioner on the lame plea that he had since retired.

(3.) Petitioner's grievance is two folds. Firstly, for the period he worked on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) which post carries additional and higher responsibility than Junior Engineer, he must be paid accordingly for the higher post, it was not a stop gap arrangement for a short time but for over 23 years, without granting him due promotion, he was made to work on a lower pay scale on a higher post involving higher responsibilities. His second grievance is that even though he had retired, he was still entitled to promotion from due date as he cannot suffer because the State slept over the matter for over two decades. For this, reliance has been placed in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, 1954 AIR(Bom) 232.