2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRAMATH PATNAIK, J.
Lok Nath Sharma – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 4542 of 2008
Decided on : 15-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Md. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
Promotion cannot be claimed as a right but there is a right to be considered for promotion.
Headnote:
promotion - Block Welfare Officer - [N/A] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Block Welfare Officer, stating that promotion cannot be claimed as a right but there is a right to be considered for promotion. The court cited the decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and emphasized that the petitioner's retirement date did not fall within the zone of the first promotion list. The court also referred to the decisions in Hardev Singh v. Union of India and A. Satyanarayana v. S. Purushotham to support its conclusion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for promotion to the post of Block Welfare Officer, claiming that despite fulfilling eligibility criteria, he was not considered for promotion and was superannuated before any action was taken.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that promotion cannot be claimed as a right and emphasized that the petitioner's retirement date did not fall within the zone of the first promotion list.
Issues: Petitioner's claim for promotion, consideration for promotion, and retirement date.
Ratio Decidendi: Promotion cannot be claimed as a right but there is a right to be considered for promotion. The petitioner's retirement date did not fall within the zone of the first promotion list.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.
PRAMATH PATNAIK, J.
In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him promoting to the post of Block Welfare Officer w.e.f 10.12.1993 or from the date from which several other persons, even junior to him, have been granted promotion, with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts, in brief, is that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Welfare Supervisor on 01.12.1964 and retired on 30.09.1998 while posted as Welfare Supervisor, Hazaribag.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide memo dated 18.06.1975, seniority list of 573 Welfare Supervisors was published, wherein the name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 523. It has further been submitted that in the year 1986 vide notification dated 20.03.1986, 240 Welfare Supervisors were promoted to the post of Block Welfare Officer and thereafter vide memo dated 29.12.1993, other 42 Welfare Supervisors were promoted to the post of Block Welfare Officer and thereafter another promotion list was published vide memo dated 29.11.1988, whereby several other persons were promoted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that in the aforesaid promotion orders, several persons, whose names do not appear in the confirmation list have been given promotion but the case of the petitioner was not considered even though he was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide letter dated 10.12.1993, it has specifically been mentioned that for want of information regarding date of birth and date of appointment of the petitioner, in spite of recommendation for promotion to the post of Block Welfare Officer in the Promotion Committee, order of promotion in favour of petitioner could not be issued. In this regard, vide letter dated 06.08.1997, District Welfare Officer, Hazaribag sent information to Director, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna relating to date of birth and appointment date of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of such communication, the Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar (respondent no. 6) again sent a letter dated 29.01.1998 to Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Hazaribag giving reference to earlier letter dated 10.12.1993 asked again the same information only with a motive to evade his promotion even knowing fully well that petitioner is going to retire in the year 1998 itself. It has further been submitted that even after retirement, the petitioner made several request by way of submitting representation for grant of promotion but till date no action has been taken.
5. Referring to the reply/rejoinder filed by petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner retired on 30.09.1998 not on 31.07.1998 as averred in the counter affidavit. Furthermore, the name of the petitioner was recommended by promotion committee way back in the year 1993 but the respondents with malafide intention did not issue promotion order for want of some documents.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State of Jharkhand submitted that the petitioner superannuated in the year 1998 much before creation of State of Jharkhand, therefore, the records pertaining to the matter in question lies with the Welfare Department of Bihar.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents-State of Bihar submitted that a final gradation list was prepared in the March, 1986. It has further been submitted that in the year 1998 case of all eligible welfare supervisors including the petitioner was considered and accordingly vide memo dated 29.10.1998 115 persons, vide memo dated 19.12.1998 92 persons and vide memo dated 28.06.1999 24 persons were considered. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in memo dated 29.10.1998, there is specific averment that benefit of promotion will be given from the date of joining and in the gradation list