2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. N. PATHAK, J.
Animesh Tetarway - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors - Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2939 of 2016
Decided on : 10-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.A. S. Pati, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Srijit Choudhury, Sr. SC-III Mr. Kaustav Roy, AC to Sr. S.C.-III
Prematurity of a petition and the court's discretion to direct respondents to expedite their decision
Headnote:
Clerks - Cadre reconstitution - Inclusion of Tracer and Receptionist posts - Petition for quashing order and direction for reconstitution - Prematurity of petition - Direction to respondents for expeditious decision
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as a Tracer, was later entrusted with the duties of Clerks. The reconstitution of Clerks' cadre in District Industry Centres excluded the posts of Tracer and Receptionist, affecting the petitioner's promotional opportunities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition premature as the petitioner had rushed to court before the Department's final decision. However, the court directed the respondents to take a decision expeditiously and communicate it to the petitioner, with liberty for the petitioner to move before an appropriate forum if the grievance is not redressed.
Issues: Prematurity of the petition, inclusion of Tracer and Receptionist posts in the cadre of Clerks
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the premature nature of the petition but acknowledged the petitioner's grievance, directing the respondents to expedite their decision and communicate it to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to take a decision expeditiously and communicate it to the petitioner, with liberty for the petitioner to move before an appropriate forum if the grievance is not redressed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Order dated 31.03.2015, issued by respondent no. 3 in terms of which 72 posts of Clerks in 12 District Industry Centres, have been reconstituted and as per the said Office Order, the hierarchy of posts was also provided earmarking three posts for Lower Division Clerks, two posts of Upper Division Clerks and one for Head Clerk. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reconstitute the cadre of Clerks in the District Industry Centre and include the posts of Tracer and Receptionists in the Cadre of Clerks in the District Industry Centre.
2. The facts of the case in short is that petitioner was initially appointed in the erstwhile State of Bihar on the post of Tracer in the District Industry Centre, Giridih in the year 1993. Thereafter, he was posted at several places in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand and was entrusted with the duties of Clerks. After bifurcation of the States, he was allocated the State of Jharkhand and presently he is posted at the District Industry Centre, Ranchi since 01.02.2016. By Notification dated 27.03.2010, the services of Jharkhand State Clerk/ Clerk-cum-Typist/ Typist/ other Clerical Services Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and other Service Conditions), Rule, 2010 was made applicable to all the Regional Offices excluding the State Secretariat and attached offices. Pursuant to the said Notification dated 27.03.2010, the respondent no. 3, vide office order dated 31.03.2015, reconstituted the 72 posts of Clerks in 12 District Industry Centres. As per the said office order, the hierarchy of posts were also provided. Three posts were earmarked for Lower Division Clerks, Two posts for Upper Division Clerks and one for Head Clerk. In view of office order dated 31.03.2015, petitioner was denuded of his opportunity to be considered for promotion. It is case of the petitioner that since inception, he has been discharging the duties and function as a clerical staff as done by other staffs of different posts. Two posts i.e. the posts of Tracer and Receptionist has been left out on the pretext that they are not clerical posts. Petitioner is aggrieved by this non-inclusion of two posts i.e. the posts of Tracer and Receptionist and thereby, preferred representations before the concerned authorities but till date, no decision has been taken by them and hence present writ petition has been preferred.
3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not included the two posts i.e. the posts of Tracer and Receptionist in the cadre of Clerks and the same is highly prejudicial to the service career of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the State of Bihar has already recognised these two posts as a Clerical posts. Learned counsel further submits that this anomaly is also against the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Learned counsel further submits that any policy whereby all promotional avenues in respect of a category of employee for all times to come, cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that State cannot deny the equality before the law or the equal protection of law.
4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed.
5. Mr. Srijit Choudhury, learned Sr. S.C.-III draws attention of this Court towards para-14 of the counter affidavit and very fairly submits that the respondents are aware that the petitioner had been discharging his duties as a Clerk and inadvertently they were not included in the cadre of clerks and as such, their case is under active consideration by the Department. The Department is taking all possible endeavour to resolve the issue and may merge the posts with the posts of Lower Division Clerks and benefits thereto shall also be notified by the Department.
6. In view of fair submission