Dwarika Prasad Sahu … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 4 of 2021 --- Dwarika Prasad Sahu … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. Director, Panchayati Raj, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 4. District Panchayati Raj Officer, Bokaro … … Respondents --- CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the Respondents --- : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C) II --- 6/29.03.2023 Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C) II for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order which was issued under the Memo No. 1975 dated 07.12.2020 by the respondent no. 2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for the difference of benefits for the post of Panchayat Sewak from 08.07.1997 has been rejected. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the petitioner was selected for the post of Dalpati by a decision taken by the Tirla Gram Panchayat. The services of the petitioner in the post of Dalpati was approved by respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 27.07.1985. On 28.06.1999, the District Level Selection Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak and a recommendation by the respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 2 was made for condoning the upper age limit. The petitioner in the meantime had preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 1390 of 2000 which was disposed of on 27.02.2002 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Sewak vide Memo No. 125 dated 02.04.2003 in the pay-scale of 3200-4900/-. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he should have been promoted to the post -2- of Panchayat Sewak on 08.07.1997 and therefore, the difference of benefits to the post of Panchayat Sewak should be made available to him from the date 08.07.1997 to 01.04.2003. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was considered by the department when he had become eligible to be promoted as Panchayat Sewak for which he has referred to an internal communication dated 09.07.1999. It has further been submitted that the respondents have ultimately given age relaxation to the petitioner pursuant to the communication dated 28.06.2002 in which also the meetings have been convened at the interval of six months which also prevented the petitioner the immediate promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak thus, depriving him the benefits of difference of salary. He further submits that juniors to the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Panchayat Sewak much prior to the petitioner and the entire consequential events would reveal that it was the respondents who sat tight over the matter and have not decided the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion as Panchayat Sewak. It has thus caused a huge financial loss to the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C) II on the other hand has referred to the supplementary counter affidavit while submitting that the issue of relaxation of age for promotion to the post of Dalpati to Panchayat Sewak was first considered and decided as per the letter dated 07.05.2002 of the department and consequent thereto the petitioner was given the age relaxation and promoted to the post of Panchayat Sewak on 02.04.2003. It has been submitted that there has not been deliberate delay on the part of the respondents and only on account of the policy decision taken for granting age relaxation with respect to such promotion, an immediate decision has been taken pursuant to which the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak. The factual aspects as well as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties reveal that the primary grievance of the petitioner is of his non-promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak w.e.f. 08.07.1997 though, he was promoted subsequently on 02.04.2003 and consequently the petitioner prays for -3- difference of salary which could have accrued, if the petitioner had been granted timely promotion on 08.07.1997. Since there was some clarification required with respect to the relaxation of age to the concerned persons who are entitled for promotion as Panchayat Sewaks, the learned State counsel was directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit filed contains the internal communication dated 07.05.2002 from which it appears that a decision has been taken with respect to relaxation of age of Dalpatis who are entitled to be promoted as Panchayat Sewaks. Subsequently, on the basis of said communication dated 07.05.2002, a decision was taken to promote the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Sewak vide Memo No 125 dated 02.04.2003. It therefore cannot be said that the petitioner could have been granted relaxation of age when he was earlier considered for promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak on 28.06.1999. The said relaxation of age was subsequently decided by the Government on 07.05.2002 and subsequent thereto the process was taken for consideration for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Sewak. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the delay in the grant of promotion to the petitioner from the post of Dalpati to Panchayat Sewak is a deliberate act on the part of the State respondents or on account of delayed response on the part of the State Government, but the entire process of promotion to the petitioner was consequent to the letter issued by the department on 07.05.2002 relaxing the age of Dalpati for consideration to the post of Panchayat Sewak. Thus, the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 is in accordance with law and in such view of the
Decision
matter, this writ application stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R Shekhar Cp 2