MATHURA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing an order as contained in letter no. 82(A) dated 11.4.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2, affirming an order as contained in memo no. 762 dated 30.7.2007, whereby the claims of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits of the post of Office Superintendent and further consequential benefits as post retirement dues has been rejected.

(2.) According to the petitioner on 24.9.1960 he was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District Welfare Officer, Chaibasa. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 24.2.1965 and in the year 1987 he was granted Senior Selection Grade. On 1.12.1992 petitioner was granted benefits of Super Time Scale. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he became eligible for the post of Office Superintendent, thereafter. In fact he was discharging his duty of the post of Office Superintendent from August 1994 till September, 1995 in the office of Respondent No. 3, as per Annexure-1. Petitioner was superannuated on 30.9.1995. Subsequently, another person namely Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma, senior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent and the petitioner, thereafter, made a representation before the respondent no. 3 on 28.7.2006 for consideration of his promotion to the post of Office Superintendent relying upon Rule 58 of Bihar Service Code. By the impugned order dated 30.7.2007 his representation was rejected by the respondent no. 3. Petitioner, thereafter, again preferred representation before the respondent no. 2, Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.4.2009 (Annexure-5). According to the petitioner, he was entitled for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the period when he was asked to discharge his duties as Office Superintendent but the same was denied to him. It is further submitted that the said Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma has been granted promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 2007.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said Nawal Kishore Sharma was senior to the petitioner and the petitioner was simply asked to discharge the duty of Office Superintendent from 18.8.1994 to 30.9.1995. However, after retirement of the petitioner, the said Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma, being senior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent due to the retirement of ex-Office Superintendent. It is further submitted that it is not the case that person junior to the petitioner has been promoted w.e.f. retrospective date in which case petitioner could have made justifiable claim of similar treatment. It is further submitted that petitioner remained silent for 11 years after retirement and according to the petitioner, he himself first made representation in July 2006 and subsequently in June 2007. Respondent No. 3 considered the matter and rejected the representation of the petitioner clearly stating that after the retirement of ex-Office Superintendent, Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma, being the seniormost has been granted promotion on the basis of the meeting convened and petitioner had only remained in additional charge for the post of Office Superintendent for the said period and no regular promotion was granted to him. Moreover, claim of the petitioner has been made after 10 years. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner was also considered by the respondent no. 2, who also rejected on the same ground.