LAWS(JHAR)-2014-9-96

KESHAV KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & OTHERS

Decided On September 20, 2014
Keshav Kumar Sinha Appellant
V/S
Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Government Of India, New Delhi And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being WPS No. 3852/2011 with the prayer that despite the fact that he has been working as a Family Welfare Health Assistant (Male Family Welfare Worker) from 22.07.1986 to the satisfaction of the authority, he has not been promoted to the post of Block Extension Educator, though persons junior to him were given promotion on the said post in the year 2008. Subsequently also in 2010, juniors to the petitioner were promoted, but the petitioner's case was not considered. He claims to have made representation before the Director-in-Health Services, Jharkhand for giving promotion from the due date, where-after he had approached this Court.

(3.) Learned Single Judge on the said occasion, after considering the contention of the petitioner as well as counsel for the Union of India and State of Jharkhand, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Director-in-Health Services, Jharkhand to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator from the date when juniors to the petitioner, Mritunjay Kumar and Pankaj Kumar Pandey have been given promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator within a stipulated period. The respondent-Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand thereafter issued an order on 15.02.2012 granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Block Extension Educator with effect from 02.04.2008, however with certain conditions that he would produce the certificate of Graduation and passing of Departmental Hindi Examination. The petitioner's contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 810/2011 for alleged disobedience of the aforesaid judgment was also disposed of in view of the order of promotion, however with liberty to challenge the order before an appropriate forum.