MOHD ABDUL HADI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this writ application the real grievance of the petitioner against the State is on account of non-granting of first and second time-bound promotion to him and consequently for re-fixation of his pension and other post-retiral dues. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Surya Kant Thakur v. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 (1) P.LJ.R. 330, the Medical Officer appointed initially by the District Board after taking over of their service by the State Government in the year 1985 are entitled to get the post-retiral dues on the basis of the total length of service including that under the District Board and denial of such benefits to such Medical Officers, which has been extended to teachers, sanitary inspectors and compounders has been held to be discriminatory by this Court.

(2.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who was appointed as Medical Officer in the District Board in the year 1960 will also be entitled for time-bound promotion as per the State Government s policy in view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court, as they will be deemed to be in the employment of the State Government from the date of their initial appointment. I am unable to accept this submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid case of Dr. Suryakant Thakur v. State of Bihar, this Court on consideration of the fact that the retirement benefits were extended to teachers/sanitary inspectors and compounders by taking into consideration the total length of service rendered by them including that under the District Board, held that there cannot be any justification to deny the same benefit to the Medical Officers of the District Board and accordingly, held the denial of the said benefits to the Medical Officers of the erstwhile District Board to be discriminatory. It is not the case of the petitioner that prior to take over of the District Board by the State Government there was any such provision in the District Board, which is an autonomous body for grant of time-bound promotion. It is also, not the case of the petitioner that the Government policy regarding time- bound promotion was adopted by the District Board concerned. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for the grant of time-bound promotion, Moreover, the petitioner retired from service in the year 1988 and has filed this writ- petition on 17.11.95, i.e. almost after seven years, which itself is sufficient ground of refuse his claim on the ground of delay and laches on his part in moving this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) However, since the State Government has not granted the retirement benefits to the petitioner, he should approach the Director, Health Services, Health Department, Government of Bihar (respondent No. 2) with the details of his claim, which shall be considered and disposed of by respondent No. 2 in the light of the general direction given by this Court in the case of Mostt. Rukmini Devi v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1996(1) All P.L. R. 363 :1996 (1) BLJ 872. The application is accordingly disposed of. Order Accordingly.