BISHWA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.6.2000 passed by the Chief Engineer, Swarn Rekha Multipurpose Project, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder his second time bound promotion has been cancelled and a direction has been issued for disposal of his claim relating to the retirement benefit accordingly.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Work Charge Establishment in which he joined,on 28.2.1967. Later on 23.9.1982 he was brought in regular establishment and accordingly he was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 23.9.1982 and second time bound promotion with effect from 28.2.1994 as is evident from the order of the Engineer-in-Chief contained in Annexure-6. However, later on the basis of the Government decision the petitioner moved the authority concerned for reconsideration of his case for grant of first time bound promotion and consequently second time bound promotion by counting the period of his employment in the Work Charge Establishment also upon which his claim has been rejected and in fact his second time bound promotion has been cancelled by the impugned order.

(3.) DESPITE service of notice long back on 14.8.2002 no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that despite his best efforts he has not been able to get instruction. However, it appears that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Western Singhbhum, presently in Jharkhand State, Respondent No. 5. on 31st August, 2004 i.e. after the creation of Jharkhand State pursuant to Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 through the learned counsel appearing for Jharkhand State in which it is stated that the petitioner has availed promotions and benefits during the Work Charge period before his regularisation as Drug Line Operator Class-1 Grade from 1.4.1977 and on this basis his first time bound promotion is effective from 1.4.1987. According to the respondent the petitioner superannuated on 28.2.1995, hence his second time bound promotion is not sustainable. Thus, according to the respondent no. 5 the Chief Engineer has rightly passed the order contained in Annexure-1.