SARYUG PRASAD TANTI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the four writ petitioners is for a direction to the State and the respondents to substantively give promotion to them from the date they were appointed as acting Executive Engineers and, consequently, to quash the order of the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-1).

(2.) There is a counter affidavit and the supplementary affidavit thereto and with consent of parties the writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage itself.

(3.) Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that substantively the petitioners were Assistant Engineers in the Department of Public Health Engineering. They were fully qualified to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineers. There were vacancies available but for various ulterior motive and considerations State instead of giving them substantive promotion gave them promotion as incharge Executive Engineers which posts they were qualified to hold substantively. They all retried as such. The adverse effect that has taken place is that they have retired on substantive pay scale of an Assistant Engineer with only officiating allowance added to their pay scale. There is a big difference between the substantive pay of Executive Engineer and that which the petitioners were being paid being substantive pay of Assistant Engineer plus allegedly 20% as the officiating pay. It may be noted that in the impugned Annexure-1 itself the Secretary has noted that even officiating pay of 20% have not been actually paid to the petitioners as such request for the same has been made to the Finance Department. The effect is that even upon superannuation the petitioners become deprive of substantial benefits while State wrongly gains in this manner. In other words, it is a wrongful loss to the petitioners and wrongful gain for the State.