IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar, JJ.
State of Jharkhand and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pramod Kumar, son of Late G.S. Mahtha – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 447 of 2019 With I.A. No. 8899 of 2019
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Jharkhand Service Code Rule 58, 103 – Officiating charge - Interlocutory application - Held, Court, after having discussed factual aspect as above, is of view that in facts and circumstances of case, provision as contained either under Rule 58 or Rule 103 of Jharkhand Service Code are not applicable since it is not a case where the arears of difference of salary is being claimed by virtue of additional charge rather such claim is based upon laches committed on part of the State in not clearing roster due to which rightful claim of writ petitioner was denied during the relevant period when other co-engineers similarly situated were granted promotion - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 8899 of 2019:
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 70 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.
4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 70 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.
5. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.
L.P.A. No. 447 of 2019:
6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3144 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 30.12.2015 has been modified to the extent that the writ petitioner will be entitled for the salary for the post of Electrical Executive Engineer from the date of his promotion, i.e., 27.06.2008.
7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:
The writ-petitioner was initially appointed on 18.09.1997 on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer vide office order issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary to the Government, Energy Department. After creation of Jharkhand, cadre division was made in the Department of Energy and promotion has been given to the rank of Electrical Executive Engineer from the Assistant Electrical Engineer without taking into consideration the advices of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasa, Ranchi. Even the Departmental noting shows that one post extra has been given to the unreserved category for promotion to the rank of Electrical Executive Engineer.
Departmental Promotional meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sri Dilip Kumar Prasad, the Chairman of Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 09.06.2009 (under challenge) along with three members, who were Assistant Electrical Engineers, were recommended to be promoted to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer with effect from the date of their joining, depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right of promotion.
Notification to this effect has also been issued vide Notification No. 1468 dated 25.06.2008, Notification No. 1469 dated 25.06.2008 and Notification No. 1470 dated 25.06.2008 respectively issued by order of the Governor, signed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Energy, Ranchi vide Notification No. 1471 dated 25.06.2008 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Energy Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the writ-petitioner was given additional charge of Electrical Inspector, Electrical Investigation Wing whereas Vijay Kumar Sinha was given promotion as Electrical Executive Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- in illegal and arbitrary manner.
In pursuance of Notification No. 1471 dated 25.06.2008, the writ-petitioner took additional charge of Electrical Inspector, Electrical Investigation Wing besides discharging the work of Assistant Electrical Engineer.
The writ-petitioner has filed a writ petition which being W.P. (C) No. 3716 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 02.05.2013 the writ-petitioner was given liberty to file fresh representation regarding his claim before the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, who is said to be competent authority and on receipt of representation, the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation.
The writ-petitioner filed detailed representation before the Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand enclosing the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3716
A. Francis v. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu
Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Mrutunjay Pani Vrs. Narmada Bala Sasmal
P.Grover (Smt) v. State of Haryana and Another
Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and Others
Quashing of punishment has retrospective effect; employee gets promotion and financial benefits from juniors' promotion dates when delay due to employer's fault; 'no work no pay' inapplicable; incomp....
Government employees are entitled to pay and allowances for higher posts they have officiated, as per the Jharkhand Service Code, and departmental memos cannot negate this entitlement.
An employee denied promotion due to administrative errors is entitled to retrospective promotion and benefits once exonerated from charges.
Promotion benefits must be provided retrospectively if employees are faultless for the delay; state errors cannot obstruct rightful claims.
Appointments made in violation of statutory rules are in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are in nullity.
Promotions in public service are prospective and take effect from the date duties are assumed, not from earlier dates, emphasizing a distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and t....
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which becomes effective only upon assumption of duties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principle of natural justice in decisions affecting employees, the authority of the Public Service Commission to m....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.