Blog

Writ petition challenging the order of petitioner rejection of promotion dismissed because of fewer merits- Jharkhand high court

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order in memo no. No. 4939 dated 16.08.2010 on the claim by the petitioner that the promotion of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has already superannuated from service while the other employees have been granted promotion and it was further prayed to forthwith release the arrears of difference of salary consequent upon grant of promotion to the petitioner and also to fix the pension of the petitioner by giving the entire arrears of pensionary benefit. The writ petition was heard and rejected by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Shatrughan Pathak versus State of Jharkhand and Anr. ( W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2010)

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner has earlier moved to this court in W.P. (S) No. 2131 of 2010 and was disposed of and in the present petition the representation is made before the secretary and the counsel submits that the claim will be considered in the right direction and the impugned order in the present case has been according to such direction issued by this court in W.P. (S) No. 2131 of 2010. The promotion of the petitioner was also kept pending by the appropriate committee and the petitioner was not promoted since departmental proceeding was still pending and his ACRs were not received by the department. The learned counsel also submits that the procedure of keeping the case of the petitioner under sealed cover was not followed and relies on the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Janikraman reported in 1991 (4) SCC 109 and submits that the concern of ACR is department concern and not of petitioners concern. learned counsel submits a case with similar facts as in the present petition of Ganesh prasad and submits the procedure has not been followed as in this case and calls for interference and relies on several judgments of W.P. (S) No. 2013 of 2015, L.P.A. No. 211 of 2019, W.P. (S) No. 4013 of 2011, W.P. (S) No. 19 of 2010 reported in 2010 SCC Online Jhar. 622, and W.P. (S) No. 6055 of 2010 and submits that there was no fault of petitioner and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of delay and latches on the part of the respondents and he is entitled to promotion because of the DPC which was held before his retirement.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state opposes that prayer and submits that merely because the inquiry report indicated that the charge was not proved that is not sufficient and it is for the disciplinary authority to take a call on the same and pass appropriate order and such order was passed only after the retirement of the petitioner and submits that merely because the procedure was not followed is not sufficient to prove the case and submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The court after hearing the argument from both sides decides that if wrong has been committed by the State Authority, then the petitioner would be entitled to all monetary benefits arising out of retrospective promotion but in the present situation the petitioner was not found fit for promotion on account of pending departmental proceeding and he was exonerated from the departmental proceeding only after his retirement and not granting promotion to the petitioner was not on account of delay or latches on the part of the respondents and accordingly the court does not finds any merits and dismisses the petition.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma