NARAYAN CHANDRA DEY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to A.G. on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for directing the respondents to grant him the first time bound promotion with effect from 19.04.1981 i.e. the date when the petitioner had completed 10 years of hi:; continuous service and also to grant him benefits of the second Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) since 09.08.1999 i.e. the date when it fell due. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Head Clerk with effect from 31.07.1983 i.e. the date on which the permanent post of Head Clerk fell vacant after the retirement of the previous incumbent and the petitioner was given charge of the same on account of his being senior most permanent clerk in the department.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would explain that the petitioner had entered into service under the respondents as permanent clerk on 19.04.1971. He had completed 10 years of his continuous service thereafter on 19.04.1981. Under the scheme for time bound promotion, the petitioner was entitled for the first time bound promotion with effect from 19.04.1981 but the same was not given to him. Subsequently, after the change in policy of the State Government, the scheme of time bound promotion was replaced by the scheme of A.C.P. and the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of A.C.P. as because he was eligible for the same by virtue of the fact that he had passed all the requisite departmental examinations even by the year 1973 itself. Furthermore, after the retirement of the previous Head Clerk of the department, the petitioner was given to officiate in the post of Head Clerk from 31.07.1983 till the date of his retirement on 31.10.2001. Learned Counsel informs that initially he was given the scale of Head Clerk on account of officiating in the said post but later, the scale was withdrawn and the same was denied to the petitioner. Learned Counsel informs further that though the petitioner has submitted his representations repeatedly, the last being on 29.09.2008 (Annexure-3), but till date his representations have not yielded any favourable response from the concerned authorities of the respondents.