Om Prakash Sinha v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 4551 of 2012 Om Prakash Sinha ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Ranchi. 2. The Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Ranchi. 4. District Agriculture Officer, Hazaribagh. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : For the State :
Legal Reasoning
----------- Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC(L&C)-II ---------- 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Class-I in Category-V (Plant Protection), being the senior most in Jharkhand Agriculture Services, Class-II, Plant Protection Category-V, from the date it fell due. 3. As per the factual matrix, on 08.11.1980 the petitioner joined the services of respondents as Pest and Disease Reporter, Surveillance Unit Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service in the Department of Agriculture (Plant Protection). Subsequently, after reorganization of the State, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand Cadre, where he joined on 02.06.2007. Thereafter, vide memo No. 322 dated 08.03.2010 the petitioner was promoted to Bihar Agriculture Service Class-II in the Scale of Rs.2200- 4000 (unrevised). The said promotion was granted in view of order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5733 of 2006 and the promotion was granted notionally w.e.f. 22.04.1993. After promotion, the petitioner joined Jharkhand Agriculture Service Class-II on 11.03.2010 in the office of Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi as a Class-II Officer. It is the further case of the petitioner that after 2 promotion in Class-II, he was given posting of Class-II Officer by virtue of memo No. 2471 dated 04.08.2010 and he was posted on the post of Junior Plant Protection Officer, Hazaribagh. The petitioner was promoted in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 (replacement scale of Rs.6500-10500) w.e.f. 22.04.1993 and as such, he became entitled to the scale of Rs.10,000- 15,200 after completion of requisite number of years. It is the further case of the petitioner that ever since 22.04.1993, the petitioner is working on Class-II post and has completed more than 17 years of services on Class-II post and he has already been granted the scale of Rs.10,000-15,200 under the Career Advancement Progressive Scheme vide memo No. 1618 dated 21.07.2008 w.e.f. 07.11.2004 and the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 44 in the gradation list. Since the petitioner is claiming promotion to the post of Class-I under Category-V Plant Protection and he has not been considered on frivolous ground, he made several representations before the respondent-authorities but no final order has been passed till date. Hence petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Niraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that from the documents brought on record, the fact remains that in the gradation list prepared by the respondent-authorities, the name of the petitioner is on top. Earlier, the stand was taken that there is no rule for promotion. However, the rule itself was floated in the year 2013 and as such, as per the Rule and as per the gradation list, the petitioner is entitled for promotion. It is submitted that since petitioner has already superannuated on 31.07.2018, his case ought to have been considered with retrospective effect, as it was the fault on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner and petitioner was not at fault. Learned senior counsel further submits that from perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it appears that in the year 2013 itself stand was taken by the respondents that the case of the petitioner shall be considered as he falls within the zone of consideration and also in view of the fact that post is still vacant. In view of the counter-affidavit and in view of the documents brought on record and 3 also taking into consideration the earlier order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court by which petitioner was earlier promoted, the case of the petitioner should be considered for promotion with retrospective effect. Learned senior counsel further argues that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has already retired, he is not entitled for promotion. Learned counsel submits that after five years of retirement, his case cannot be considered for promotion. Further taking into consideration the documents brought on record, it has been fairly submitted that since in the year 2013 itself the respondents have taken a stand that case of the petitioner shall be considered, since he falls within the zone of consideration and also in view of the fact that posts are still vacant, there is no other option left with the State but to consider the gradation list as well as rule floated by the respondent-State and pass a reasoned order for promotion of the petitioner in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Jharkhand Agriculture Service (Appointment and Promotion) Rules, 2013 and gradation list. It has been further argued that since no order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and if petitioner is found entitled for promotion, reasoned order to that effect shall be passed by the respondents. 6. Be that as it may, having heard the submissions of the parties across the bar and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that this is a glaring example in which the promotion has been delayed due to the lackadaisical and lethargic approach of the respondent-State. In the year 2013 itself a stand was taken to consider the case of the petitioner as he falls within the zone of consideration and also in view of the fact that seats are still vacant, but inspite of the same timely promotion was not granted to the petitioner. From perusal of the documents 4 brought on record, it appears that name of the petitioner found at top of the seniority list and posts are still vacant and also rules for promotion was floated in the year 2013 itself. 7. Under such circumstances, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass reasoned order on his representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say if the petitioner is found entitled for promotion to Class-I post under Category-V, Plant Protection, the same shall be considered and granted in accordance with law along with all the consequential benefits. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
Decision
stands disposed of. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)