SAMUAL EARNEST JAYRAJ LAKRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had approached this Court in the year 1999, directing the respondents to promote him on the post of Assistant Controller, Weight and Measures w.e.f. 2nd May, 1986 i.e. the date, on which he took charge on officiating basis of the said post vide Annexure1. He had also prayed for directing the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Controller, Weight and Measures when he was subsequently given the charge of the said post vide Annexure6 dated 9th February, 1994, which he discharged till his retirement. He had also made a claim for grant of salary to the post of Assistant Controller from 2nd May, 1986 to 9th February, 1994 and thereafter for the post of Deputy Controller, Weight and Measures till his retirement i.e. 30th November, 1997. He had also prayed for fixing his post retirement benefit on the last pay drawn by him in the scale of promotional post of Deputy Controller.

(2.) THE petitioner, however, confines himself to the prayer nos. 1(iii) and (iv), which relate to payment of salary of petitioner for the post of Assistant Controller from 2nd May, 1986 to 9th February, 1994 and thereafter till his retirement for the post of Deputy Controller and also for consequent post retirement benefits on such scale. The factual basis for making such a claim, according to the petitioner, is that after having been appointed as Inspector in the Department of Agriculture on 30th April 1964, he was posted as Assistant Controller on 2nd May, 1986 vide Annexure1 which was issued in respect of other persons as well, his name figures at serial no. 33. The petitioner thereafter submits that he was granted first time bound promotion, junior selection grade and senior selection grade. However, again vide Annexure6 dated 9th February, 1994, he was given additional charge of Assistant Director of AgriculturecumDeputy Controller, Weight and Measures, Dumka Division.

(3.) THE factual foundation in the present case is exactly similar to that of Muneshwar Razak, which the counsel for the RespondentsState of Jharkhand as well as Bihar have not been able to distinguish. In the facts and circumstances, which appear in the present case, therefore the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief as granted to Muneshwar Razak by the Patna High Court as per the judgment contained at Annexure7.