STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. UMESH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent has been filed by the respondent -State against the judgment dated 7.8.2006 passed by learned single Judge in WPS No. 2988 of 2004 whereby the petition was allowed with a direction to the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) to release the monetary benefits to the petitioners with effect from the date, the petitioners/respondents were made in -charge Executive Engineer in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6167 of 1992 and CWJC No. 596 of 1999{R) decided on 22.1.2001.

(2.) RESPONDENTS /petitioners filed WPS No. 2988 of 2004 seeking direction upon the appellant -State to grant benefit of promotion from the date they were made in -charge Executive Engineer. Petitioners case was that while working as Assistant Engineer, they were made In -charge with effect from 30.6.1998, where as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were made in -charge with effect from December 1999, Subsequently, petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on substantive basis vide order dated 13.6.2002. Petitioner No. 1 was granted promotion with effect from 1.2.2000, petitioner No. 2 with effect from 1.8.2000, petitioner No. 3 with effect from 1.4.2000 and petitioner No. 4 with effect from 1.4.1998 with monetary benefits with effect from date of Notification i.e., 13.6.2002. The grievance of the petitioners before the learned single Judge was that similarly situated persons were granted promotion from the date they were made In -charge Executive Engineer. Petitioners, put reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6167 of 1992 and also on the decision rendered in CWJC No. 596 of 1999 (R). Petitioners further case is that these judgments have been implemented by the State. Learned single Judge, therefore, allowed the Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India writ petition in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned writ petitions and directed the respondent -State to release the monetary benefits. The judgment and order dated 7.8.2006 which is impugned in this appeal is quoted herein below: Petitioners while working as Assistant Engineers were made Incharge Executive Engineer. Petitioner No. 1 was made Incharge on 30.6.1998 whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in December, 1999. Now petitioners have been granted promotion as Executive Engineer on substantive basis vide order dated 13.6.2002, petitioner No. 1 w.e.f 1.2.2000, petitioner No. 2 w.e.f 1.8.2000, petitioner No. 3 w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and petitioner No. 4 w.e. f. 1.4.1998 with monetary benefit w.e.f. from the date of the notification dated 13.6.2002. The grievance of the petitioners is that similarly situated persons were granted benefit of promotion from the date they were made Incharge. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6167/1992 decided on 2.8.1993. It is further stated that another writ petition CWJC No. 596/99 (R), Sajjad Hassan and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. Was decided in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of the order dated 22.1.2001 passed by High Court in CWJC No. 596/1999(R) is also placed on record. These judgments have been implemented by the State as is evident from order dated 9.05.2003 passed by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioners are similarly situated except petitioner No. 4 on whose behalf statement is made at the bar that petition is not pressed, therefore, petition in respect of petitioner No. 4 is dismissed. In the above circumstance, this petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to release monetary benefits in favour of petitioners w.e.f. the dates they were made Incharge in the light of the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 6167/1992 and later judgment in CWJC No. 596/1999(R) decided in 22.1.2001, Let final order be passed within a period of three months.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating the submission made by the learned Counsel for the State, it would be appropriate first to consider the decision rendered in the writ petitions upon which learned single Judge, relied upon.