The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of availing the appropriate and efficacious remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to entertain the relief sought by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Advocate.

2. Heard Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

3. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

“A) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of this petitioner for promotion to the I.A.S. Cadre retrospectively w.e.f. 1998 i.e., the date of his Selection and to give all consequential benefits thereon.

B) The Respondents be directed to issue integrity Certificate with retrospective effect and to give all consequential benefits thereon.

C) The Respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner arbitrarily and to give him the benefits of his selection to the post of I.A.S. Cadre as has been given to the same and similarly situated persons.

D) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to be granted to the petitioner.”

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12587/2001 seeking a direction upon the respondent-State to issue Integrity Certificate to the petitioner. She submits that the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2001. The petitioner filed appeal being L.P.A. No. 75/2002, which was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2003 as contained in Annexure-1 to the present writ petition. She submits that in LPA No. 75 of 2002, the court disagreed, interalia, with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that issuance of Integrity Certificate is an administrative decision and held that the authority cannot refuse to grant integrity certificate on whimsical or arbitrary grounds and observed that in spite of representation filed by the petitioner, the authority had not considered the matter regarding grant of Integrity Certificate to him and the LPA was disposed of with a direction upon the State Government to decide the question of grant of Integrity Certificate to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

6. The learned senior counsel further submits that thereafter the respondent-State passed another order dated 24.07.2003 rejecting grant of Integrity Certificate to the petitioner on the ground that there has been some disciplinary proceeding and imposition of some minor punishment against the petitioner in the past. The said order of rejection dated 24.07.2003 was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 4484/2003, which was decided vide judgment dated 25.11.2003 and this Court considered the fact that the punishment, that too a minor punishment, related to way back in the year 1989-90, followed by subsequent promotion of the petitioner, has lost its relevance with the passage of time. Consequently, the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2003 was setaside and the State of Bihar was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the matter of grant of integrity certificate as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

7. The learned senior counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner had to file a the petition for initiating contempt proceedings on account of non-compliance of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4484/2003 and ultimately, the integrity certificate was issued by the State of Bihar only on 28.12.2003 and the petitioner retired on 31.12.2003.

8. A supplementary-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner annexing a letter dated 30.12.2003, wherein it has been mentioned that the integrity certificate issued by Government of Bihar has been received in the Office of the U.P.S.C. (Union Public Service Commission) on 30.12.2003 and it was mentioned that the petitioner was to retire on 31.12.2003. The learned senior counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner ultimately retired and the present writ petition has been filed on 08.01.2004 seeking the afore