INDRADEO PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 12.2.2013 in CWJC No. 2831 of 2013. The learned Single Judge held that officiation on current charge from 1994 on the higher post did not vest a claim for seniority and promotion from that date. The subsequent grant of substantive promotion in 2007 did not warrant any interference. The claim to be considered for subsequent promotion had to be considered in accordance with law from date of substantive promotion. The appellant was held entitled to officiating allowance under Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he held officiating charge on the higher post of Deputy Director of Agriculture from 1994. It was therefore not a stop gap arrangement. The appellant fulfilled all conditions of eligibility for promotion. A substantive vacancy was available. On 18.9.2007 the authorities themselves granted him such promotion with effect from the date of assuming charge. Subsequently on 28.9.2007 it was modified as effective from the date of issuance of order i.e. 18.9.2007. No opportunity was given before taking away the benefits accrued by the earlier order. Final orders were issued on 15.7.2010 granting him notional promotion with effect from 5.6.2007 modifying the earlier orders.

(2.) The appellant is entitled to seniority in the rank of Deputy Director of Agriculture from the date of officiation in 1994. The cause of action accrued to the petitioner after the order dated 5.8.2011 was issued granting him promotion to the Junior Selection Grade with effect from 11.3.1992. Thus rendering him eligible for substantive promotion as Deputy Director of Agriculture.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General-III opposing the application submitted that the appellant became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture only in 1997 after completing the five years duration from 11.3.1992. In the meantime the entire system and procedure for promotions changed. After 1.1.1996, promotion was only to be granted on need based posts. No person junior to the appellant has been promoted from any prior date. Even persons senior to him have been promoted only in the year 2007 as apparent from Annexures-C and D to the third supplementary counter affidavit. Because of the change in procedure and abolition of Selection Grade etc., consideration of the eligible for promotion has taken time. No person has a vested right for promotion, only a right to consideration, which has not been denied to the appellant.