VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the communication dated 5.9.2000 (Annexure - 21) whereby while deciding the inter se seniority, petitioner has been shown junior to respondent no. 8. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 1.9.2000 (Annexure -22) whereby respondent no, 9 has been granted regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 23.7.1981, petitioner, respondent no. 8. and other persons were appointed as Junior Engineers on a consolidated salary of Rs. 299 p.m. In the said order, name of the petitioner is at serial no. 2 whereas that of respondent no. 8 is at serial no. 8. By the said order, all the appointees were directed to submit their joining within a week. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner joined his duty as Junior Engineer on 1.8.1981 whereas respondent no. 8 joined on 5.8.1981. It seems that for the regular appointment to the post of Junior Engineer and grant of regular scale of pay, an agenda was prepared for consideration of the Standing Committee of the Patna Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation to be held on 10.8.1984. In the said agenda note, the names of the Junior Engineers working from before on consolidated salary including the petitioner and respondent no. 8, were placed and the agenda note indicated petitioner as senior to respondent no. 8. The said agenda note was approved and by order dated 11th of January, 1985, petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were appointed as Junior Engineers on ad hoc basis for a period of one year from 10.8.1984 in anticipation of the approval of the Bihar Public Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. In this order also, name of petitioner was shown at serial no. 1 whereas that of respondent no. 8 is at serial no. 3. Petitioner as also respondent no. 8 continued to work as Junior Engineers and the respondent Corporation published a seniority list dated 8.7. (992 (Annexure -5) showing the petitioner at serial no. 1 and that of respondent no. 8 at serial no. 2. Lateron, by order dated 23rd of September, 1994 (Annexure -7), petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were asked to perform the work of Assistant Engineers in addition to their own work. Further, by order dated 15.6.1995, petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were promoted as Assistant Engineers in anticipation of the approval of the Commission. Lateron, by order dated 19.8.1995, respondent no. 8 was reverted to the post of junior Engineer. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred C.W.J.C. No. 8129 of 1995 (Ravindra Kumar Verma V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors.) before this Court and this Court, by order dated 27.2.1997 (Annexure -11) disposed of the writ application with the following direction : "7. Be that as it may, since no regular promotion can be granted until concurrence of the Commission, it would be difficult for this Court at this stage to direct the authorities to promote the petitioner on regular basis. But since respondents themselves had taken steps for obtaining concurrence of the Commission, I would direct the respondent Administrator to get the matter finalised so that after obtaining concurrence of the Commission, the petitioner can be considered for promotion. 8. But before parting with this order, I also feel inclined to direct the respondents that in case it is considered desirable to appoint any person on officiating basis, then seniority of such person must be maintained. Therefore, the respondents shall consider whether Vijay Kumar was entitled to such officiating promotion or the petitioner. Final steps in compliance of this order must be taken positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."

(3.) RESPONDENT no. 8 aggrieved by the same, preferred L.P.A. No. 1623 of 1999 (Ravindra Kumar Verma V/s. Vijay Kumar and Ors.) before this Court. The appeal preferred by respondent no. 8 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 5.9.2000 (Annexure -L) in the following words : We fully agree with the view taken by the (earned Single Judge that as there was controversy with regard to seniority between them and the matter had even come earlier to this court, it was necessary for the Administrator of the Corporation to have decided the question of seniority after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Admittedly the writ petitioner -respondent was not heard before determining the question of seniority and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference by this court. In terms of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, if the Administrator of the Corporation has not decided the matter, already, then he is directed to decide the question of seniority between the appellant and the writ petitioner -respondent within a period of two months from the date of their appearance before him and for that purpose both the parties are directed to appear before the administrator on 18.9.2000, who will fix a firm date and, thereafter, he will dispose of the matter within the aforesaid period."