SURENDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.2.2013, contained in Letter No. 839 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner's representation for confirming his services and giving him the benefits of 1st and 2nd A.C.Ps, has been rejected by the respondents. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction on the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner on the post of Clerk in the department with effect from the date of his joining and to give him the benefits of the 1st and 2nd MACP, admissible to the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the State Services in the year 1980. The petitioner joined the post of Clerk in the Office of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga. By Letter No. 737 dated 16.10.81, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga recommended for confirmation of his services. The petitioner also passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and Accounts Examination and acquired requisite eligibility for promotion. The petitioner was transferred to and posted in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur. During his service tenure, on competition of 12 years as well as 24 years of service, the petitioner was entitled to get the benefits of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, but the said benefits were not given to the petitioner. Even the order of confirmation of his service was not issued by the department. The petitioner, after rendering long service, attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.3.2013.

(2.) It has been further stated that when his service was not confirmed even after long lapse of time due to laches of the department and the benefits of 1st and 2nd A.C.Ps., admissible to him, were not given, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6480/2012. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to take decision and pass appropriate order. The respondents in purported compliance of the said direction of this Court, rejected the petitioner's claim in mechanical manner by order contained in Letter No. 839 dated 20.2.2013.

(3.) It has been submitted that the service of one Yogendra Prasad, who was also appointed as a Clerk in the Commercial Tax Office and was junior to the petitioner, has been confirmed and the benefits of 1st and 2nd A.C.Ps have been given to him. But the petitioner's claim has been rejected on the ground that no scheme has been prepared by the department as yet on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi.