DEONANDANPRASADSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application the prayer of the petitioner is to quash to order of the Government as contained in Addl. Secretary's latter dated 26-4-93 (Annexure 6) to the writ petition and to direct the respondent to promote him to the Senior Selection Grade post in the department of Agriculture with effect from 1-12-1986 when his juniors were promoted to the aforesaid post and also to grant all consequential benefits including retirement benefits.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner earlier also ,had filed a writ petition being C. W J. C. No. 6627 of 1991 which was disposed of by order dated 15-1-1993 with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent No. 2, the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna and further to respondent No. 2 to dispose of the said representation in accordance with law by a reasoned order. Thereafter it appears, the petitioner filed representation. Which has been disposed of by the impugned order, dated 26-4-1993 (contained in Annexure '6').

(3.) Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed the required 'Kalawadhi' for promotion to the Senior Selection Grade on-1-4-1986 and the junior or the petitioner were given promotion with effect from 1-12-1986 ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner. In this regard the learned Counsel submitted that the only reason mentioned for denying the said benefit in the order of the Government as contained in Annexure '6' is that there was some allegation of 1987 pending enquiry for which the petitioner was censured in January, 1989. According to the learned Counsel, the said ground is not sustainable inasmuch as the claim of the petitioner for the promotion in the Senior Selection Grade is with effect from the date prior to the aforementioned order of sanction, which could not have been taken into account for denying the promotion. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case reported in (1975) 4 S.C C. 318 (16).