BIDHAN CHAND SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for considering the case of the petitioner, who is currently serving a Lower Division Clerk, for promotion to the post of Labour Enforcement Officer and further for payment of the consequential benefits.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the Department of Labour on 15.05.2002 on the post of Lower Division Clerk whereafter his appointment was confirmed on 30.07.2010 and then he was granted the benefits of first A.C.P. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner vide letter dated 14.06.2016. The respondents had then initiated the process of promotion and the Labour Commissioner by his letter dated 16.09.2016, while finalizing the case the list of eligible candidates for promotion, had called for objections / claims from the concerned authorities. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial no. 28, however, against his name a remark was made regarding pendency of the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur had sent a list of candidates to the Labour Commissioner and the petitioner's name was shown at serial no. 1. Finally on 13.10.2016, a list of 23 persons was published vide office order no. 10 dated 13.10.2016, granting promotion to them on the post of Labour Enforcement Officer, however, the name of the petitioner was missing from the said list. It is the further contention of the petitioner herein that the respondents vide letter dated 31.10.2016 had informed the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer, upon enquiry has found all the charges levelled against him to have not been proved, hence he was being exonerated of all the charges. The petitioner being dejected represented before the Labour Commissioner, however, to no avail.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sealed cover procedure as envisaged in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Union of India and Others. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & ors, (1991) 4 SCC 109.) ought to have been followed by the respondents herein and the sealed cover was required to be opened only in case of complete exoneration of the petitioner herein from all charges whereafter notional promotion could have been given to the petitioner herein from the date on which juniors were promoted. However, the respondent authorities have clearly derelicted on the said score, more so in view of the fact that subsequently, the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, as such, he was/is entitled to be granted promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors have been granted promotion.