DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents for grant of promotion on the post of Senior House Master with effect from 01.01.1995. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as junior House Master on a sanctioned vacant post in the Borstal School, Daltonganj. There is one post of Junior House Master and one post of Senior House Master in the said Borstal School. It is the case of the petitioner that on 31.12.1994 one Jagdish Pathak who was working on the post of Senior House Master retired and thereafter, from 01.01.1995 the petitioner was directed to officiate and work on the vacant post of Senior House Master. The petitioner continued to work till 2003, however, he was not granted regular promotion on the post of Senior House Master inspite of several representations. The petitioner has been working on the post of Cashier also, as there is no post of Cashier or Assistant Cashier in the school. The petitioner requested for grant of cash handling allowance also which has been ordered by Government of Bihar to be paid to such employees who had been discharging functions of Cashier in their office/institution though not appointed on the said post however such allowance has also not been paid to the petitioner. Notification dated 05.01.2000 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar has been brought on record by the petitioner in support of his claim for payment of allowances for cash handling in the Borstal School. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been admitted that the petitioner has been performing the daily routine work of Senior House Master besides performing the duties of his own post i.e., Junior House Master. The claim of the petitioner is sought to be denied on the ground that merely because he has been performing the daily routine works of Senior House Master, he would not automatically become eligible for promotion. The petitioner has been granted two time-bound promotions and thus, he has been given promotions due to him.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the post of Senior House Master is vacant in the school since 01.01.1995 and the petitioner has been discharging the duties of Senior House Master since then, he has been illegally denied regular promotion on the post of Senior House Master. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner was not asked to officiate on the post of Senior House Master and he has already been given two time-bound promotions therefore, his claim for grant of promotion and pay scale on the post of Senior House Master is not justified.