Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Chittaranjan Kumar Buernevey
Versus
Bihar State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3178 of 1994 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 4, 1997
PROMOTION - DELAY - UNREASONABLE - CONSIDERATION - RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED - CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 - PUBLIC SERVICE - DISCIPLINE - OBLIGATION OF EMPLOYER - MODEL EMPLOYER - ACCOUNTABILITY - TIMELY CONSIDERATION - OBJECTIVE APPROACH - WELFARE STATE - DELAYED CONSIDERATION - LACK OF PERCEPTION - QUASHING OF IMPUGNED ORDER - DIRECTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROMOTION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND CONSEQUENTIAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board, was eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary on 1st March 1982, having completed the required period of service. However, his promotion was delayed due to allegations of irregularities against him, which were later cleared by the Vigilance Department. The Board promoted him to the post of Under Secretary with effect from 28th April 1986, the date from which his junior was promoted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Board's decision to delay the petitioner's promotion was unreasonable and violated his right to be considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the Board, as a model employer, had an obligation to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in a timely and objective manner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Board's decision to delay the petitioner's promotion was reasonable. 2. Whether the Board had an obligation to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in a timely and objective manner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Board's decision to delay the petitioner's promotion was unreasonable because there was no cogent reason given in the impugned order for the delay. The Court also held that the Board's attempt to improve the impugned order on the basis of additional reasons not mentioned in it could not be accepted. 2. The Court held that the Board, as a model employer, had an obligation to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in a timely and objective manner. The Court held that the Board's failure to do so violated the petitioner's right to be considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Board to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Under Secretary with effect from 1st March 1982. The Court also directed the Board to grant the petitioner consequential financial benefits.
A. K. Ganguly, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 12th February, 1984 passed by respondent no.2, the Secretary, Bihar State electricity Board, Patna (here in after referred to as the Board) rejecting the petitioners representation which was filed pursuant to a direction of this court in CWJC No.3355 of 1993. By the said order the Secretary of the board held that the promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Under secretary on and from 28th April, 1986 was rightly granted and consequently the petitioners claim for promotion to the post of the Joint Secretary is not acceptable as the petitioner had not fulfilled the required period of Kalawdhi for getting promotion to the post of joint Secretary after the said post fell vacant with effect from 1st February, 1988.
2. The material facts which led to the passing of the aforesaid order and are required to be noted to decide the controversy in this case are stated below: according to the assertion made in the writ petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Administrative officer on 8th June, 1968 and he was granted selection grade scale in the said post of Administrative Officer. The petitioner also claimed that he had worked as Superintendent which ac-cording to him was a post equivalent to that of Under Secretary from 24th august, 1979 to 22nd February, 1984.
3. It is not in dispute that the next promotional post is that of Under secretary and as" per the resolution dated 8th June, 1983, the Kalawdhi for the post of Under Secretary is 8 years of service as an Administrative Officer and the Kalawdhi for the higher post of the joint Secretary is seven years service as under Secretary or equivalent thereto.
4. It is also not in dispute that the post of Under Secretary fell vacant on 1st March, 1982 and by that time the petitioner had more than 13 years of service as an Administrative Officer and as such had completed the prescribed period of Kalawdhi for being considered for promotion to the post of Under secretary. The petitioner stated that he made representation dated 13th July, 1982 to that effect to the authorities concerned but the authorities did not pay any heed to the same and the petitioner also gave a reminder to the same. These facts stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition have not been disputed in the counter-affidavit of the Board.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioners case for promotion to the post of Under secretary was eligible for consideration in the month of March, 1982 itself, it was considered only in the month of march 1986 when the Departmental promotion Committee was convened for considering the case of other eligible candidate to the post of Under secretary and on the basis of such consideration the petitioner was promoted to the post of Under Secretary by notification dated 27th May, 1986 with effect from 28th April, 1986, the date of which the petitioners junior Sri Ganesh prasad Mishra was promoted. As the petitioners representation claiming that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Under Secretary with effect from 1st March, 1982 could not produce any result, he filed a writ petition which was numbered as CWJC No.800 of 1991. The said writ petition contained multiple prayers and one of them was relating to the petitioners post retirement benefit and the other was relating to his right to claim promotion to the post of Under Secretary with effect from 1st March, 1982. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 4th August, 1992. The said order is in two parts. The first part of the order is with respect to the claim of the petitioner relating to post retirement benefit with which this Court is not concerned and the second part of the order is with respect to the claim of the petitioner for promotion and consequential financial benefits. In the second part of the order, the learned judges directed the petitioner to make a representation
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
