SATYADEO MISTRY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to grant them promotion to Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade, in terms of the recommendation made by the Board in its meeting held on 23.3.1998, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 with the writ application. They have also prayed for quashing of letter no. 1364 dated 30.3.2010; as contained in Annexure-6, by which their request for promotions has been rejected on the ground that the resolution of the Board dated 23.3.1998 cannot be acted upon now.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. From Annexure-1, it appears that in the Vigilance Department a Board was constituted for consideration of cases of Sub-Inspectors of Police working in the Department for grant of promotion to them in Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Super Selection Grade. It also appears that the last such consideration was made in the Vigilance Department in 1983. It has been noticed that on account of delay in decision in such matters, many a times it was found that the employees superannuated without getting the due promotions and as the service records could not be updated many a times a state of uncertainty prevailed in respect of their entitlements. Hence this Board was constituted for consideration of all those Sub-Inspectors or Inspectors who were junior to the Sub-Inspectors granted promotion in 1983. This Board considered individual cases and recommended the five petitioners for their promotions, as contained in Annexure-1. This recommendation of the Board was not acted upon and some of the petitioners superannuated before filing of the writ application and some have superannuated after it.

(3.) From Annexure-2, it appears that as late as in 2009, the matter of grant of Selection Grade as per the recommendation of the Board was under consideration in the Vigilance Department at some level and the file was still pending with some query of the Department. As such the matter had not been sent to the Finance Department as yet. This Annexure-2 is a letter of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the Government, and is dated 8.7.2009. It appears that, thereafter, petitioners filed some representation before the Lokayukt from, where a query was made from the Department and, by the impugned Annexure-6, it was replied with a stand that the recommendation of the Board dated 23.3.1998 is not in operation now and, therefore, cannot be considered. Hence, petitioners moved this Court.