Ranchi v. 1. Lal Tudu, son of late Shital Tudu, resident of House
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 737 of 2019 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General -cum- Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchhi, PO & PS: Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) In-Charge Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS: Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. Superintendent of Police, Godda, PO, PS & District: Godda. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Head Quarters), Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS:Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. ..... ...Appellants Versus 1. Lal Tudu, son of late Shital Tudu, resident of House No. 1/V-45 Ravindra Nagar, Phase-II, Morabadi, PO: Ranchi University, PS: Morabadi, Distt.: Ranchi. 2. The State of Bihar, through the Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police, PO,PS & Dist.: Patna, Bihar, Patna 3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, PO & PS: Lalpur, Distt: Ranchi …. ….. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA; ----- For the Appellants Mr. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG-IA For the Resp. No.-1 : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the State of Bihar For the JPSC Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Binit Chandra, JC to GA(Bihar) : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate; -----
Decision
Order 19th July 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the order dated 21st June 2019 in WP(S) no. 450 of 2014 by which the following direction has been issued by the writ Court: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this court finds that the name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion to the post Dy.S.P. and subsequently it was also recommended by the SSP Ranchi for promotion of the same post on 6.7.2002 and thereafter his name was also forwarded for giving promotion to the post Inspector of Police w.e.f. 1.7.1982 and this fact has not been considered by the concerned authority, hence the order dated 14.8.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner for giving promotion w.e.f 20.8.2005 in the light of the observation made 2 LPA No. 737 of 2019 herein within eight weeks from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 2. The respondent had made prayers before the writ Court for (i) promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and (ii) confirmation to the post of Inspector of Police from the year 1982 with all consequential benefits. 3. Briefly stated, the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub- Inspector on 1st July 1976 in the erstwhile State of Bihar. He was promoted in the rank of Inspector of Police on which post he assumed the charge on 8th April 1988. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the writ petitioner while he was expecting promotion in the higher rank approached this Court in WP(S) No.1345 of 2003 which was disposed of by an order dated 17th July 2008 with a liberty to him to file his representation before the appropriate authority. However, by an order contained in letter dated 14th August 2013 the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand rejected his claim for promotion in the rank of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 01.07.1982 and as the Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 4th August 2005 on the ground that after 31 years such claims cannot be considered. 4. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that in a properly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee suitability of 90 Inspectors of Police was considered and 71 persons were found eligible for promotion and, accordingly, a recommendation was made on 26th July 2004 in which name of the respondent is recorded at serial no. 69. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that in the proceeding of the Departmental Promotion Committee conducted on 2nd August 2005 in which 45 Inspectors of Police were recommended for promotion, no reason has been disclosed why the respondent was not promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. 5. Now the issue which has been canvassed before us is whether the respondent who was granted regular promotion on 8th March 1988 can claim promotion on the basis of an order passed in WP(S) no. 1345 of 2003 about forty years after he was promoted in the rank of Inspector of Police. The prayer made by the respondent for shifting the date of his promotion in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police has also invited a similar objection by the State of Jharkhand. 6. This is fundamental in service jurisprudence that eligibility and suitability for promotion in the higher ranks do not confer a vested right in a government employee to claim promotion. This is common knowledge that promotion to a government employee is granted having regard to eligibility and suitability of the government employee and the number of vacancies existing in 3 LPA No. 737 of 2019 the promotional cadre. There is a fundamental distinction between monetary benefit accruing to a government employee and promotion in a higher rank. While the monetary benefits shall be extended to a government employee w.e.f. the date the employee has attained eligibility, promotion in the higher rank cannot be granted from a back date even where the government employee has attained eligibility. In “Union of India v. N.C. Murali” (2017) 13 SCC 575 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless provided under the extant rules no government employee shall be entitled for promotion from a retrospective date. 7. under: In “N.C. Murali” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as “17........... it is clear that unless there is specific rule entitling the applicants to receive promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy, the right of promotion does not crystallise on the date of occurrence of vacancy and the promotion is to be extended on the date when it is actually effected.” 8. Now in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the writ petition itself was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The writ petitioner having failed to demonstrate before the writ Court that as on 26th July 2004 there were vacancies and juniors to him were promoted in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, no direction could have been issued by the writ Court for a fresh consideration of his case on the basis of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 26th July 2004. 9. Having found so, LPA No. 737 of 2019 is allowed and, as a consequence thereof, WP(S) No. 450 of 2014 is dismissed. 10. We clarify that the cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the State of Jharkhand shall be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks. 11. IA No. 7592 of 2022 stands disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated-19th July 2023 Soumya/Nibha-NAFR