SARJU PRASAD AND DINESHWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DRINKING WATER & SANITATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 2nd July, 2005 passed by the respondent authorities. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were given promotion on 14th August, 1989 on the post of Work Sarkar from the post of Assistant Plumber Mistry. After this promotion, which was given in the year 1989, writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals ( L.P.A. No. 10 of 1997 (R)) were filed and finally the promotion was withdrawn on 7th April, 1998 and consequently, petitioners filed a writ petition, which was dismissed with a liberty to file review application against the order dated 23rd September, 1997 passed in the aforesaid Letters patent appeal, being L.P.A. No. 10 of 1997 (R). The petitioners filed Civil Review No. 70 of 2003, which was disposed of with a liberty to the Department to decide the matter afresh on the representation of the petitioner and final order has been passed by the Department on 2nd July, 2005 confirming the earlier order dated 7th April, 1998. This order is at Annexure 18 to the memo of the petition, which is under challenge in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite a detailed representation being preferred that the Circular of the year 1995 is not applicable to the petitioners, this aspect has not been appreciated at all while passing the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2005 and only one line order has been passed confirming the earlier order dated 7th April, 1998 was in accordance with law, but the reason for remanding the matter was not at all appreciated by' the respondents. Therefore, the matter may be remanded to Respondent no. 2 to decide afresh the representation of the petitioners regarding the claims as made in this petition.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners while passing the order dated 7th April, 1998 and even at the time the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2005 has been passed and hence representation of the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioners were initially working as Assistant Plumber Mistry. Promotion was given on 14th August, 1989 as Work Sarkar. This promotion was withdrawn on 7th April, 1998 and the writ petition was preferred by the petitioners in which he was directed to file a review application against the order dated 23rd September, 1997 passed in Letters patent appeal No. 10 of 1997 (R). The petitioners filed Civil Review No. 70 of 2003, which was disposed of with a liberty to the Department to decide the matter afresh on the representation of the petitioners and final order has been passed by the Department on 2nd July, 2005 confirming the earlier order dated 7th April, 1998. This order is at Annexure 18 to the memo of the petition, which is under challenge in the writ petition. The earlier L.P.A. was preferred by the State in the matter of persons who are similarly situated with the present petitioners. It ought to be kept in mind by the respondents authorities that the order passed by the Department in compliance of the order passed by the Court, contains only a one line reasoning that order dated 17th April, 1998 was in accordance with law, which is insufficient. Specific plea has been raised by the petitioners in the representation that the circular of December, 1995 is not applicable to the petitioners because they were given promotion prior to 1995, i.e. on 14th August, 1989, but nothing has been mentioned in this regard in the impugned order as to how the circular of December, 1995 is applicable to the petitioners, which is the bone of contention in this writ petition also. Looking to para 44 of the petition and the representation (annexure 17), in which it has been stated that circular of 1995 was not applicable to the petitioners since they have been given promotion in the year 1989, it appears that the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2005 is silent on this particular point.