SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Pat) 930

NARAYAN ROY
Krishnadeo Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner by this application seeks direction upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Industries/Joint Director, Technical in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and also for the revised scale.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that promotion of the petitioner was due since long and ultimately, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter to be referred to as "DPC"), recommended his case for promotion vide letter dated 25.4.1996 and the Cabinet approved it on 30.7.1996. but, in the meantime, the petitioner superannuated with effect from June 1996. Learned counsel further submitted that since the case of the petitioner was already considered by the DPC and he was recommended for promotion with prior concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "Commission"), the authorities were duly bound to pay the consequential monetary benefit to the petitioner even after his superannuation.

4. The facts are not much in dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that since the Cabinet has granted post facto approval on




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top