Patna High Court · 2010
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7458 of 2013 ====================================================== Dharmdeo Singh S/O Late Sukhnandan Singh R/O Village- Garbhe, P.S.- Kargahar, Distt.-Rohtas, At Present Resident At Flat No. 301, B-Block, Jagmano Garden Apartment, Ved Nagar (Rukanpura), P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Finance .... .... Petitioner Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Special Secretary Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director (Prosecution), Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Secretary (Prosecution), Bihar, Patna 6. The Principal Secretary Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna 7. The Addl. Director (Vigilance) Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna 8. Surya Deo Prasad, The District Prosecution Officer-Cum-Deputy Director (Legal) Prosecution, Patna 9. Devendra Kumar Mishra, The District Prosecution Officer, Rohtas P.S. + Distt.-Rohtas .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 10-05-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the following prayer of the petitioner:- “commanding the respondents authority to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Divisional Prosecution Officer from its due date i.e. 02.9.2011 and to grant consequential benefits of the District Prosecution Officer since 31.7.2003 (when the petitioner had taken charge of incharge Divisional Prosecution Officer” since Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2013 (2) dt.10-05-2013 2/6 20.7.2008 (since when similarly situated respondent no. 8 & 9 have been promoted on the post of District Prosecution Officer vide resolution no. 3324 dt. 11th April 2010) in the light of Resolution no. 7020 dt. 24.122005 from retrospective effect) and i.e. 02.9.2011.” this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no flaw in the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 19.8.2012 which has been given to him as well as seventeen others by the notification no. 577 dated 19.8.2011 which is of-course with prospective effect. The grievance of the petitioner that while the petitioner and others were given such promotion on the post of District Prosecution Officer with prospective effect i.e. 19.8.2011, such promotion in case of the respondent nos. 8 & 9 was notified on 21.4.2010 with effect from 20.7.2005 gets also clarified from the government decision dated 24.12.2005 wherein the issue relating to retrospective promotion as also notifying the date of promotion has been laid down in the following terms:- ^^4- ;fn lacaf/kr foHkkx mPprj inksa ij izksUufr dh vfxze ;kstuk cukdj lle; izksUufr dh dkjZokbZ lqfuf”pr djsa rks Hkwrkis{kh izHkko ls izksUufr nsus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha jg tkrk gSA rFkkfi ;fn vifjgk;Z ifjLFkfr;ksa esa Hkwrkis{kh izHkko ls izksUufr nsus dh furkar vko”;drk gksrh gks rks fuEukafdr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gh Hkwrkis{kh izHkko ls izksUufr vuqekU; dh tk ldrh gS %& …d‰ ;fn fdlh laoxZ ds duh; inkf/kdkjh dks fdlh dkj.k o”k izksUufr ns nh tk, rFkk ojh; inkf/kdkjh fdUgh Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2013 (2) dt.10-05-2013 3/6 dkj.kksa ls izksUufr ls oafpr jg tk;sa ,oa ckn esa izksUufr ds ;ksX; ik, tk, rks ,slh fLFkfr esa duh; inkf/kdkjh dh izksUufr ds mijkUr ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls ojh; inkf/kdkjh dks] vkfFkZd ykHk ds lkFk izksUufr vuqekU; dh tk;sxh o”krsZ fd foyEc ls izksUufr ds fy, ojh; inkf/kdkjh dh Lo;a dh dksbZ xyrh u gks tSls okf’kZd vH;qfDr;ksa ds fy, vkÅV VuZ le; ij ugha fn;k tkuk] foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa visf{kr lg;ksx ugha djuk vkfnA …[k‰ ojh;rk iqujh{k.k ds dkj.k ;fn dksbZ duh; dehZ ojh; gks tkrk gS rks uo ojh; inkf/kdkjh dks muls Bhd duh; dh izksUufr dh frfFk ls oSpkfjd izksUufr vuqeksU; dh tk,xh rFkk duh;re dh izksUufr jn~n dj nh tk;xh fdUrq iwoZ esa izksUufr ik ysus ds dkj.k vf/kd Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf”k dh olwyh ugha dh tk,xhA ;g dkjZokbZ ojh;rk iqujh{k.k dk vkns”k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls rhu ekg ds vUnj iwjh dj yh tk;xhA fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k ds vUnj dkjZokbZ iwjh ugha gksus ij foyEc ds dkj.k ;fn vf/kd Hkqxrku djuk iM+rk gS rks foyEc ds fy, nks’kh O;fDr ls jkf”k dh olwyh dh tk;xhA …x‰ mPprj in ij izksUufr ds fy, vgZrk izkIr inkf/kdkjh ds miyC/k gksus ds ckotwn ;fn fdlh dkj.ko”k lle; izksUufr nsuk laHko u gks] rks in dh miyC/krk] ijh;rk] vkj{k.k ,oa izksUufr ds fy, inkf/kdkjh dh vgZrk ,oa mi;qDrrk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, mPprj in dk dk;Zdkjh izHkkj fn;k tk ldrk gS rFkk ckn esa fu;fer izksUufr ij fopkj djrs le; ;fn foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr dk;Zdkjh izHkkj xzg.k dh frfFk ls izksUufr nsus dh Li’V vuq”kalk djrh gS rks dk;Zdkjh izHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls vkfFkZd ykHk ds lkFk fu;fer izksUufr vuqekU; dh tk ldsxhA …?k‰ Hkwry{kh izHkko ls izksUufr mi;qZDr dafMdk …d‰ ,oa …x‰ ds izko/kku ds v/khu lsokjr ,oa lsok fuo‘(cid:217)k dfeZ;ksa ij leku :i ls ykxw gksxhA …M-‰ ;fn fdlh ekeys esa mi;qZDr izko/kkuksa dk vuqeku Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2013 (2) dt.10-05-2013 4/6 fd;s cxSj mPp(cid:217)kj in dk izHkkj fdn;k tkrk gS] rks oSls ekeyksa esa mPprj in dk osrueku vuqekU; ugha gSA bl izdkj ds ekeys fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e&103 ds v/khu fofu;fer fd, tk,axs rFkk vfrfjDr izHkkj ds :i esa mPprj in ds nkf;Ro fuokZg ds fy, lacaf/kr ljdkjh lsod }kjk /kkfjr fuEu in ij izkIr ewy osru dk 20 izfr”kr vf/kdre 250 :i;s dh Lohd‘fr nh tk ldsxhA …p‰ fnukad 01-01-96 ls iwoZ ykxw izoj dksfV ,oa dkyc) izksUufr ;kstuk ds v/khu ns; izksUufr;ksa ds fy, fo(cid:217)k foHkkx ds ifji= la0& 2074m fnukad 04-04-05 ds izko/kku iwoZor ykxw jgsaxsA** (underline for emphasis) As would be apparent, the respondent nos. 8 & 9 were given charge of the higher post and they were admittedly senior to the petitioner and, therefore, paragraph no.4 ‘Ga’ underlined above will squarely cover their case because for them the date of promotion could be retrospective at least from the date they were holding the charge of the higher post. That benefit, however, cannot be given in case of the petitioner because he was never given such charge of the higher post on which he had been continuing till the date of his promotion. It is true that the petitioner for sometime was given the higher post of District Prosecution Officer by way of fortuitous arrangement but that was immediately discontinued by bringing the senior persons on such post and removing the petitioner even from such working Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2013 (2) dt.10-05-2013 5/6 arrangement. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the dates of notification of promotion of the respondent nos. 8 & 9 vis-à-vis the petitioner. The retrospective promotion is an exception in service jurisprudence, inasmuch as, promotion invariably has to be made only from the date of notification. Such exception having been carved out in the aforementioned government decision and the petitioner having been failed to fit in the same, they cannot also find any justification in now allowing him to reopen the issue involving himself vis-à-vis respondent no.8 and 9 who, as noted above, are all along senior to the petitioner as would also shown from Annexure-1, the order of their initial appointment on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer. This Court also must note the submissions of the
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the petitioner wherein he has sought to explain of their being ten vacancies available on the post of District Prosecution Officer and yet the case of the petitioner and others not being notified only due to want of clearance report from the vigilance department. In the case of regular promotion these formalities have to be completed and, therefore, when no one junior to the petitioner was promoted either on officiating basis or Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2013 (2) dt.10-05-2013 6/6 even by way of making in-charge much less byway of regular promotion, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner even on this score. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-