NARASINGH KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise with effect from the date the persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion i.e. 30.6.1994 considering the fact that the petitioner when was not given promotion in the year 1994 represented before the respective authorities and the respondent authorities vide order dated 7.11.1994 has allowed the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise, on deputation on which the petitioner worked till his superannuation. It is further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the salary of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise from 7.11.1994, the date on which the petitioner has been allowed to work on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise on deputation, since the petitioner was getting the salary of constable, although he was functioning as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise since 7.11.1994. It is further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner on the ground of considering his promotion on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector w.e.f. the date, his juniors have been given promotion. It is further prayed for issuance of direction asking the respondent authorities to consider his case for promotion on the post of Sub Inspector of Excise since the candidature of the persons/junior to the petitioner are being considered for further promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise whereas, the candidature of the petitioner has been turned down on account of fact that he was still working on the substantial post of constable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the seniority list (Annexure-1 to the petition), wherein, the name of the petitioner is shown at Srl. No. 255. It is the case of the petitioner that juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise by order dated 30.6.1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon Annexure- 2 to the petition to show that one Sri Prabhat Kumar Dutta, whose name is at Srl. No. 14 in the said list, who is junior to the petitioner and shown at Srl. No. 265 in the seniority list as well as one Sri Pramod Singh, who is at Srl. No. 22 in Annexure-2 and whose placement in the seniority list at Srl. No. 263 have been promoted vide order as contained in Annexure-2 to the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon Annexure-11 to the petition and pointed out that Sri Prabhat Kumar Dutta and Sri Dhrub Deo Singh, who are junior to the petitioner have been granted further promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector by order dated 7.3.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since this is an old case of the year 2003, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider this petition as representation and take a final decision within stipulated time so that long pending issue with regard to seniority of the petitioner can be come to end.

(2.) As against this, learned counsel for the respondent State has referred to relied upon the counter affidavit filed in this matter and submitted that since the petitioner was not appointed on the substantive post and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered at the relevant point of time for higher promotion by the respondent authorities.

(3.) Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of material facts on record more particularly, Annexure-1, it appears that the present petitioner's placement in the seniority list is at Srl. No. 255 and from perusal of Annexure-2, it also appears that the officers/junior to the petitioner, whose placement in the seniority list at Srl. Nos. 263 and 265 have been promoted to the post of A.S.I. and subsequently, by order as contained in Annexure-11, it also appears that they have further been promoted to the post of S.I. Under the circumstances, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner, though his placement in the seniority list above the persons/officers junior to the petitioner have been considered for the post of ASI as well as SI by the respondent authorities but the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent authorities and, therefore, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is required to be referred to the respondent authorities by treating it as representation of the petitioner and the respondent authorities are required to be directed to deal with and decide the same within reasonable time so that the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed.