STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI K.D.SINHA, THE THEN AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER Vs. MD.AINUL HAQUE, (SENIOR CITIZEN) S/O LATE MD.NAMUL HAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. Nobody appears on behalf of the sole respondent although name of his counsel, Mr Vikas Mohan appears in the daily cause list.

(2.) The appellants were respondents in a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 2352 of 2005. By the order under appeal dated 27.6.2006, the learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of an order dated 18.5.2006, contained in Annexure - C to the supplementary show cause of the respondents (appellants herein). The learned Single Judge held that denial of promotion on the post of Joint Director was not legally correct because the denial was on the ground of not having completed the requisite experience on the lower post of Deputy Director. For this proposition, reliance was placed upon observations made in an order dated 19.6.2006 in another case of one K.D. Prasad belonging to the same directorate i.e. Directorate of Agriculture. The learned Single Judge thus found denial of promotion to the respondent herein to be against law and directed that the State respondents should grant the scale of Joint Director to him with effect from the date he officiated on the said post as was done in the case of Sri K.D. Prasad. The arrears of salary in terms of such order were also directed to be paid.

(3.) The main grievance raised on behalf of the appellants is that contempt proceeding should have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge after noticing that the State and its authorities had complied with the order of the Writ Court and had already considered the case of the concerned employee for promotion to the post of Joint Director. If the concerned employee i.e. respondent herein was not satisfied with the order denying him promotion to the post of Joint Director, he should have been granted liberty to challenge such an order through an appropriate writ proceeding but instead of that, accepting the grievance of the employee and interfering with the order by the impugned order, according to learned Counsel for the appellants, is without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellants to place their case properly in support of the order dated 18.5.2006.