JAYANT LAL PAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR, COMMISSIONER-CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA AND SRI A K. SINHA, ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act is for violation of the order dated 25.10.1979 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2873 of 1979. The petitioner, who is Research officer in the Irrigation Research Institute, Khagaul, under the Department of Irrigation, Government of Bihar, had filed the said writ application to consider his case for promotion to the post of Additional Director (Scientific in the said Institute at Khagaul, on the ground that he alone was the eligible candidate for the said post which was lying vacant on the retirement of one Shri R.L. Dewan on 1.2.1979. On 25.10.1979 a Bench of this Court consisting of one of us (Hari Lal Agrawal, J.) on hearing Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, for the petitioner, and the then Standing Counsel No. 5 Mr. B.P. Gupta, had disposed of the said writ application with a direction to "respondents 1,2, and 3 to decide the matter of filling up of the aforesaid post of Additional Director (Scientific) within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order" Standing Counsel no. 5 had submitted before the Bench that one Shri J. Bahadur, respondent no. 4 was holding the said post of Additional Director on an officiating basis as a stop gap arrangement as "the authority has not yet decided the proper person who should be promoted to the said post" and that the case of the petitioner will also be duly considered while considering the case of promotion to fill up the said post.

(2.) The present application was filed on 21.2.1480 after the expiry of the said period of three months with an allegation that the said respondents 1 to 3, namely the State of Bihar, the Commissioner -cum -Principal Secretary, Irrigation department (respondent no. 2) and Shri A.K. Sinha, Kngineer -in -Chief -cum -Special Secretary, Irrigation Department, Bihar (respondent No. 3) had not carried out the orders of this court. Rule was ultimately issued by order dated 19.5.80 after several adjournments granted to the State Counsel and cause was shown on behalf of the contemners much beyond the time allowed by the Court. Firstly the cause was shown on their behalf under the affidavit of a Sec. Officer on 5.6.80 and when the attention of the Court was drawn to this fact under order dated 16.7.1980, respondent no. 3 to the writ application -one of the contemners, namely, the Engineer -in -Chief, filed a show cause adopting the previous affidavit filed by the Sec. Officer mentioned above.

(3.) It may also be mentioned that in the writ application an application was filed on 11.4.1980 for review of the order dated 25.10.1979. The stand for modification of the order in question as well as in the show cause mentioned above, is that previously the Research Officer had been given a promotion to the post of Deputy Director which was in time scale pay at par with the post of an Executive Engineer in the Bihar Engineering Service, Class I, and held by Shri R.L. Dewan till 30.1.75 when the post of Additional Director of Irrigation was created at par with the post of the Superintending Engineer to provide an avenue of promotion to Shri Dewan. It has further been stated that at the time of the hearing of the writ application the then Standing Counsel no. 5 "in the absence of adequate information and instruction from the State Government in the Department of Irrigation, assured the petitioner that his case would be duly considered while considering the case of promotion to full up the said post on a regular basis, namely the post of Additional Director. Thereafter it has been stated that after the said order of the Court the matter was examined by the Irrigation Department at different levels as well as Law Department, and a modification of the said order was advised and the post of Deputy Director kept in abeyance sine die since the year 1975, may be revived so as to provide an avenue of promotion to Research officers including the petitioner. The statements made in the seventh paragraph of the review application are of great importance and may be quoted in verbatim.