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

2013 Supreme(Pat) 610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S.N. HUSSAIN, J.
Chandra Choor Pandit & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11935 of 2006
Decided on : 19.06.2013

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Anjani Kumar, Senior Advocate A.A.G. 10 with Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, A.C. to A.A.G. 10.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the respondents to consider seniority and grant promotions in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure and final gradation list.

Headnote:

Promotion - Live Stock Supervisor - [Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Act, Section 5(1)(a); Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited Act, Section 8(2)(b)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Act, Section 5(1)(a) and the Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited Act, Section 8(2)(b) in relation to the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Live Stock Supervisor and subsequent promotions. The court highlighted the requirement for considering the seniority of the petitioners and the duty of the respondents to grant promotions in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure and the final gradation list.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought promotion and consequential benefits to the post of Live Stock Supervisor and subsequent promotions. They alleged discrimination in promotions compared to their juniors.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had discriminated against the petitioners by granting promotions to their juniors without considering their cases, despite specific directions from previous court orders.

Issues: Discrimination in promotions, failure to consider seniority, and non-compliance with court directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents had discriminated against the petitioners and failed to consider their seniority in promotions, thereby violating previous court orders.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider and grant promotions to the petitioners with all consequential benefits, in accordance with the dates when their juniors had been granted such promotions.

ORDER


This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-

(i) For a direction on the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for promotion with all consequential benefits to the post of Live Stock Supervisor w.e.f. 19.03.1991 and subsequent promotion to the post of Live Inspector w.e.f. 20.04.2000 and still subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Fodder Development Officer/Assistant Technical Officer w.e.f 19.03.2001 i.e. the date juniors to the petitioners have been given such promotions.

(ii) For a direction on the respondents to pay the petitioners difference of arrear of salary on account of aforesaid promotions along with 10% interest from due date of payment to actual date of payment.

2. I.A.No.7670 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioners for amending the reliefs claimed in the writ petition in the terms stated hereinbelow. The said interlocutory application had been allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2013.

(iii) For a direction on the respondents to produce the final gradation list of the posts of Live Stock Assistants containing the names from Serial No.1 to 3601.

(iv) For a direction on the respondents to produce the orders cancelling promotion to the juniors of the petitioners who are in service and who stood retired.

(v) For quashing of reasoned orders contained in Memo No.638 and 924 dated 25.05.2012 and 11.07.2012 respectively by which the claim of similarly situated to the petitioners for promotion to the higher post were wrongly rejected on incorrect facts.

3. The claim of the petitioners is that after following the prescribed recruitment procedure, they were initially appointed on different posts in the then Bihar State Dairy Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) and their services were regularized against different class III posts vide order dated 07.11.1977. However, when the Corporation did not prove to be a profitable venture the State Government decided to close the same and to transfer its assets and liabilities to Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Federation’ for the sake of brevity) which was constituted to execute and implement the scheme ‘Operation Flood-II’ and to absorb the services of the officers and Staff of the Corporation in the Federation in accordance with their utility and thereafter the services of the remaining officers and staff of the Corporation shall be absorbed in different Government Departments, including Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Agriculture Department, Public Works Department, Rural Engineering Organization Department, etc. A resolution in that respect was published on 10.02.1984.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that vide letter dated 07.02.1986 the Special Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department sent the names of Class III and Class IV employees of the Corporation, including the petitioners, for absorption in the Federation. However, in the said letter the name of one Sri Awadh Kishore Singh was at serial no.19 and he was subsequently regularized with effect from 01.04.1974, whereas the petitioners, several of whom, were above serial no.19 and were senior to him were not regularized, although all the employees whose names were forwarded by the aforesaid letter were absorbed against Class III posts of Live Stock Assistant in the then pay scale of Rs.535-765 vide order dated 07.03.1986 and were posted under Intensive Cattle Development Branch (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ICDB’ for the sake of brevity) and even then they were working regularly on that post without any promotion, although they were given pay protection and continuity of service vide letter dated 15.06.1987.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that several Live Stock Assistants in the Federation who were junior to the petitioners were given promotion to the post of Live Stock Supervisor in the ye
















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 Back to top