NAWAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners who have been promoted vide Notification Nos. 186 of 187, both dated 1.7.2009 from State Subordinate Education Service Cadre (Primary Branch) to State Education Service, Class-II (Inspecting Branch) with retrospective effect have sought for direction upon the respondents to grant the financial benefits accruing from the date of said promotions.

(2.) The undisputed facts as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioners were appointed in Subordinate Education Service (Primary Branch) in the erstwhile State of Bihar and after bifurcation of the State of Bihar on 15.11.2000, the petitioners have been allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand. After being posted to the cadre to the State of Jharkhand, when the case of the petitioners for promotion was not considered one Sri. Banke Bihari Singh belonging to the cadre of the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 6250 of 2006 for grant of promotion of Jharkhand Education Service, Class-II in accordance with the provisions enshrined in Jharkhand Education Service (Class-II), Recruitment Rules, 1973 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 5.12006 with direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioners for promotion and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The aforesaid order dated 5.12006 was not complied with by the concerned respondent. Therefore, Contempt application being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 248 of 2007 was filed and the said contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.2009 for implementation of the order within a period of 4 weeks. In deference to direction passed by the Court in W.P.(S) No. 6250 of 2006 and Cont. Case (Civil) No. 248 of 2007, the petitioner along with others were promoted to the Jharkhand Education Service, Class-II (Inspecting Branch) by Notification Nos. 186 and 187. both dated 1.7.2009 vide Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that vide notification dated 11.1999 and 4.11.1999 vide Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ application, it would be evident that the similarly situated person those have been promoted to Bihar Education Service Class-II have been given financial benefits with retrospective effect. Thereafter, one Sri. Banke Bihari Singh, the President petitioners' association being aggrieved for not getting the financial benefits from an anterior date on which the promotion orders have been effected, submitted representation dated 18.2010 vide Annexure-7 to the writ application for ventilating the grievances of the petitioner and others. Due to sphinx like silence on the part of respondents, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that though, the petitioners are entitled to monetary benefits accruing from the date of promotions vide Notification Nos. 186 and 187, both dated 1.7.2009 but the respondents have denied to extend such benefits of promotion purportedly in view of Rule 74 of Finance Rule and Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code as disclosed in the counter-affidavit and the stand of the respondents in denying the monetary benefits amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the belated promotion which have been given to the petitioner was due to the laches and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the respondents and the petitioners ought not to be at fault on that amount. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to decision as reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 519 in the case of Rana Raghunath Pd. Singh and another Vs. The State of Bihar and others at para Nos. 18 to 24 and 28, 1999 (1) PLJR 272 (Ranjit Sahay Jamuar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others) at para Nos. 7 and 8 and also reported in 2012 (2) JCR 296 (Jhr) in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and others at para Nos. 8 to 11.