BIHARI LAL MANDAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was selected and appointed as Excise Inspector through Combined Competitive Examination vide Memo No. 3632 dated 20.6.1983. He joined his duty on 7th July, 1983. Vide Memo No. 5587 dated 9.12.1987 and was confirmed to the post. By letter vide Memo No. 5291 dated 1.11.1990, petitioner was given charge of Superintendent of Excise over and above his own post of Excise Inspectors. In the year 1994, gradation list was issued vide letter dated 24th June, 1994 of the post of Excise Inspectors. Petitioner's name figured at serial number 213 in the said list. Petitioner was also granted benefits of first time bound promotion with effect from 1.7.1993. It is alleged that vide notification dated 22.8.1995, 20 Excise Inspectors including two juniors, namely, Kameshwar Mehta and Karam Singh Oraon were promoted ignoring the case of the petitioner. However, subsequently petitioner was given charge of Superintendent and later the Assistant Commissioner of Excise vide letter' dated 16.12.1999. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given promotion on substantive post even though the juniors were promoted as mentioned above. He has made representation dated 20.4.1997. It is however admitted that departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Memo No. 2548 dated 8.5.2000. Earlier also departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Notification No. 2025 dated 20.5.1996. Yet another proceeding was initiated vide notification no. 761 dated 15.2.1997. This proceeding also ended with a punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect vide an office order no. 3336 dated 2.10.2000. Petitioner has made another representation for his promotion. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been granted any promotion though persons junior to him have been promoted even after the completion of departmental proceeding.

(2.) RESPONDENT -State of Bihar as also the State of Jharkhand have filed their separate counter. The State of Bihar has stated that petitioner has been provisionally allocated to the State of Jharkhand and it is only the State of Bihar who can consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. The State of Bihar in its detailed counter has stated that petitioner has been promoted as Incharge Superintendent of Excise and thereafter was granted first time bound promotion in the year 1994. He was also given promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner in the administrative exigencies. The case of the petitioner is said to have been considered by the D.P.C. in its meeting held on 21.9.1994 but due to pendency of charges and departmental proceedings, the Department did not recommend his name for promotion and some of the juniors were promoted. It is stated that petitioner has also been punished in departmental proceeding and has been imposed punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect vide office order dated 2.12.2000. The case was again considered by the D.P.C. in its meeting held on 28.9.2001 but again due to non -availability of his confidential reports, he was not promoted.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that final cadre allocation has been made between State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. Petitioner has been permanently allocated to State of Jharkhand. It is also not in dispute that departmental proceedings against the petitioner are over with punishment as noticed hereinabove. Petitioner is working in stop gap arrangement as Assistant Commissioner but he is entitled to be considered for substantive post of the Superintendent of Excise and Assistant Commissioner of Excise in view of the fact that the persons junior to him have already been promoted.