PREM CHANDRA PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Memo No. 708 dtd. 14/11/2014 (Annexure-13), issued by Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi. Further prayer has been made to grant the benefits of ACP/MACP with effect from 1/8/1998 till the retirement i. e. 31/7/2008 and thereafter, on the basis of refixation, the pensionary benefits be fixed from the date the petitioner has retired from service.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk under the respondents and his date-of-birth is 1/8/1948, therefore, he has completed the age of 50 years on 1/8/1998. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year, 1994, he appeared in the departmental examination but he failed to clear the second part of the said examination. In the year, 1999-2000, the Departmental Examination was conducted but the petitioner could not appear in the said examination due to urgent official work and as such, on that account, the petitioner was debarred for getting the benefits of ACP as he has not cleared the departmental examination. The petitioner retired from his services w.e.f. 31/7/2008, while working on the post of Accounts Clerk under the respondent No. 6. It is specific case of the petitioner that in view of Resolution/ Notification no. 4674 dtd. 15/5/1992, the employees, who have completed the age of 50 years be exonerated from appearing / passing the departmental examination. In view of the said notification and on completion of 50 years of age in August, 1998, the petitioner represented before the respondents, but without considering the said Circular/Notification, the same was rejected vide letter No. 742 dtd. 6/9/1999. Thereafter, as the petitioner fulfilled all the criteria in terms of Annexure 1, the petitioner again filed a representation before the respondent No. 5 and on receipt of same, the respondent No. 5 vide letter dtd. 16/5/2001 recommended the matter of the petitioner to respondent No. 4 for grant of the benefits of ACP Scheme without passing the Departmental Examination in terms of the guidelines dtd. 15/5/1992 as the petitioner had already completed the age of 50 years. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 vide his letter dtd. 10/10/2001 directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 2 if so desired. Accordingly, in view of the direction, the petitioner represented through proper channel, which was strongly recommended by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 along with entire records and with all relevant documents before the respondent No. 2 on 7/8/2003 and 1/12/2003 respectively. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 passed an order directing the concerned respondent to pass positive order with regard to the petitioner for granting the benefits of ACP. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 483 dtd. 20/8/2004 rejected the claim of the petitioner for granting the benefit of exoneration from appearing in the Departmental Examination after completion of 50 years of age on the ground that in the year, 1999, the matter was already rejected by respondent No. 4.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 6079 of 2004 Reported in 2013 (1) JLJR 415, which was dismissed on 2/1/2013. Against the order of dismissal dtd. 2/1/2013, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner preferred LPA before the Division Bench, which was allowed vide order dtd. 25/2/2014 and the order of learned Single Judge was set aside and matter was remitted back to the respondent No. 4 for considering the case of the appellant in the light of Notification No. 4674 dtd. 15/5/1992. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner represented before respondent No. 4 on 12/3/2014. As the representation of the petitioner was not disposed off, the petitioner filed Cont. (Civil) Case No. 892 of 2014. It is further the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of aforesaid Cont. case, the respondent No. 6 filed a show cause and annexed the copy of the order passed by the respondent No. 4 issued vide Memo No. 1383 dtd. 24/7/2014, which was passed in favour of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was exempted from appearing in the Departmental Examination in the light of letter No. 474 dtd. 15/5/1992 and also such order was passed in light of the direction issued in L.P.A. No. 46/2013. But the respondent No. 5 vide his Memo No. 708 dtd. 14/11/2014 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of the benefits of ACP/MACP and as such, the Cont. Case was dismissed with a direction to challenge the order of rejection and hence, this writ petition has been preferred, challenging the order of rejection for granting the benefit of ACP/ MACP.