STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. SURYADEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment dated 20.04.2010, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner being W.P.(S) No.19 of 2010 directing the respondents to grant promotion to the writ petitioner on the post of Chief Engineer and to compute all financial pre and post retirement benefits within a stipulated period of four months from the date the certified copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is presented before the respondent No.2 of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also ordered that if the payment is not made within next six weeks along with interest @ 8 % per annum on the amount of all arrears which are found to be due to the writ petitioner for the period after 22.4.2006, from the date on which amounts became due till the date of actual payment.

(3.) The State has preferred this letters patent appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code, the employee who has not assumed the duties of the post is not entitled to any pay and allowances attached to the post for which he was promoted. It is also submitted that the petitioner-respondent since retired prior to giving effect to the recommendation of the D.P.C., therefore, in view of the Rule 58(a), the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to the pay and allowances attached to the post of Chief Engineer. In addition to the above, it has been submitted that the D.P.C only recommended for the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Superintending Engineer to the post of Chief Engineer, but that recommendation is not binding upon the appointing authority and the appointing authority could have taken a different view than the recommendation. In this case, the appointing authority has denied the promotion of the petitioner because of the reason that the petitioner was twice punished ; once, he was punished with the punishment of censure and on another occasion, he was punished with stoppage of 10 % of the pension.