BAL MUKUND JHA Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises from an order by which the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE appellant approached this Court for quashing an order by which his claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Director was rejected by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (in short, the Board). He also sought direction upon the Board to refund the sum of Rs. 45,865.50 deducted from his salary and pension and a further direction not to withhold any pensionary benefit. He also sought direction for time bound promotion.

(3.) THE short facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Personnel Officer in the . services of the Board in 1975. On 18.5 90 he was granted selection grade with effect from 2.8.1988. One Arvind Kumar was also granted selection grade by the same order but with effect from 13.8.1988. He was thus placed below the petitioner in the gradation list of the Personnel Officers. On 14.2.1996 said Arvind Kumar was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Personnel) besides one Braj Kumar Tiwari (who was senior to the appellant) bypassing the appellants claim. The appellant moved this Court in CWJC No. 6551/96. In the counter affidavit filed in that case the Board stated that in the meeting held on 30.1.1996, for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Personnel), the case of the Appellant was considered but as certain charge relating to misappropriation of money and materials was pending against him, one post of Deputy Director (Personnel) was kept reserved. A learned Single Judge of this Court, before whom the writ petition came up for final disposal on 20.4.1988, took the view that only in cases where chargesheet has been issued against an employee or the charge has been framed against him in a criminal case, the consideration for promotion can be deferred, but not in other cases. And as in the instant case no chargesheet had been served upon the appellant nor any charge had been framed in a criminal proceeding, his case should have been considered for promotion along with his juniors. The learned Judge however having noticed that the appellant had retired from service meanwhile on 31.12.1996 observed that there was no question of grant of actual promotion. Even if, after such consideration promotion is granted the appellant will get only notional benefits. With these observations the learned Judge directed the Secretary of the Board to consider the appellants case for promotion.