BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the writ petitions similar question of law and facts are involved. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioners in both the writ petitions are employees of the respondents Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. The petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.6600 of 1992 was appointed on 16.8.1974 and petitioner in CWJC No. 3797 of 1993 was appointed on 14.3.1975. The petitioner in C.W.J.C.No. 6600 of 1992 was allowed to officiate on the post of Store officer vide letter dated 23.5.1987 and subsequently he was allowed ad hoc promotion vide letter dated 2.1.1989. By the same letter the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3797 of 1993 was allowed to officiate on the post of Store Officer. He was also allowed ad hoc promotion vide letter dated 3.8.1989. Subsequently, ad hoc promotion allowed to the petitioners in both the writ petitions was cancelled vide letter dated 1.12.1990 on the ground that roster clearance was not made nor procedure was followed. The said order was challenged before this Court and the order dated 1.12.1990 was quashed directing the Corporation respondent to serve notice on the petitioners and pass order in accordance with law. However, in one of the writ petitions order was passed allowing the petitioner to continue on the post till further order. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the petitioners were allowed to function on the post of Store Officer and notice was issued to them to show cause. They also filed their show cause, After consideration of the show cause the respondents cancelled the ad hoc promotion vide letter dated 20.6.1992, annexure 11 and 13.1.1993, annexure 9, respectively. The said order of cancellation is under challenge.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as has been taken in their pleadings during the course of argument. It is manifest from the materials on record that the petitioners were appointed on the post of laboratory incharge on two different dates. They were allowed ad hoc promotion but the same was cancelled by the respondents against which they moved this Court and this Court quashed the order of cancellation of ad hoc promotion and directed to issue notice to the petitioners to show cause. Pursuant to the order the respondents allowed them to continue on the post of Store Officer and issued notice to them to show cause. On consideration of the show cause the respondents again cancelled the ad hoc promotion granted to the petitioners on the ground that rules, procedure and roster clearance was not followed by the authority concerned at the time of allowing ad hoc promotion.