RAM NANDAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court not being satisfied with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State on 10.1.2003 directed the Respondent State to file a further counter affidavit explaining as to why if promotion has to be granted to the petitioner from the date the same has been granted to his immediate juniors, financial benefits also will not accrue to him as delay in granting the said promotion was not due to laches of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has been agitating this matter since long. He had first moved this Court by filing C. W.J.C. No. 5631 of 1996 whereby petitioner has been granted liberty to move the department first for redressal of his grievances and the Respondents were directed to dispose of his representation by a reasoned order. When no reasoned order was being passed, petitioner was compelled to move this Court by filing M.J.C. No. 3582 of 1998. During the pendency of the contempt application, by Annexure -2 promotion has been granted to the petitioner from the date his immediate juniors have been granted promotion However, as the petitioner has already superannuated, no financial benefit was given rather it was stated that the said promotion would be notional promotion.

(3.) IN the instruction received by the State counsel, the main contention has been that the petitioner stood superannuated on the date when his promotion was considered in view of direction of this Court and the Rule 74 of the Bihar Financal Rules and the Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code clearly envisage that if promotion has to be granted to a superannuated person, the same can be notional. In the same statement of facts, a fact which has been candidly accepted is that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted from the earlier date and have received financial benefits, this fact has not been denied. This being the accepted fact and another fact which is also relevant is that on the date when the juniors were considered for promotion, petitioner 'scase was not rejected by the Departmental Promotion Committee. As such, laches if any, is of making of the department itself even pendency of a departmental proceeding is not a bar in consideration for promotion. Said proceeding has resulted in exoneration from the charges. Now this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the laches which is not of his making. He has to get the same benefit what his immediate juniors have been given.