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

1989 Supreme(Pat) 349

PATNA HIGH COURT
P.S.Mishra and Bhuvaneshwar Prasad JJ.
Dr.Paras Nath Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 107 of 1987 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 15, 1989

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 227-scope of-court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 should net ordinarily exchange its supervisory jurisdiction to travel beyond the impugned order and direct by a mandamus for things to be done for which parole evidence may he necessary. (1980) 3 SCC 459-Relied Upon: 1977 LIC 191, 1971 LIC 1231- Explained. (Paras 11, 12 & 13)

       Constitution of India-Article 226-Courts where on noticing fact and appraisal thereof find it to he a case of the employer denying the employee his rights, the Courts shall issue a writ of mandamus-however, the Courts shall not go beyond the refrains of enquiry so as to deprive any other person of any right accruing on account of concluded separate and independent course of action. 1986 PLJR 631, (1985), 3 SCC 38, AIR 1984 SC 498, AIR 1984 SC 325 (1984) Supp SCC 155, AIR 1983 SC 578, AIR 1974 SC 460, (1968) 2 SCR 366: AIR 1968 SC 718-Explaiaed & Relied Upon. (Para 17)

       Constitution of India-Article 226-whm a person entitled to promotion is not promoted, he can always invoke the jurisdiction under Art. 226 for a mandamus to the employer State to consider his case for such promotion, as such due promotion is not a claim of anything notional but it is something that is really attached to the status and service contract of the concerned employee. (1977) 2 SCR 656-Relied Upon. (Para 19)

       Bihar Service Code-Rule 58-notional promotion-person entitled to promotion denied the same-claim for such due promotion is not a claim of anything notional-it is some thing attached to the status and the service contract. (Para 19)

       Constitution of India-Article 14, 16 and 226-petitioners claim for seniority and promotion upheld upto Supreme Court-petitioner only assigned due position in the seniority list but posted at the lowest rung of the cadre even though juniors promoted and posted at much higher position-petitioners case for promotion never considered and petitioner superannuated-respondents directed to give due promotions to the petitioner with effect from due date as also to pay all the monetory and pensionary benefits-respondents also directed to pay interest @ 15% compo unable perannum on the amount due in the interest of justice. (Paras 18, 20, 22, & 23).

Judgment

P.S.Mishra, J.

1. The facts are not in dispute. I propose to narrate only those which relate to salary and scale of pay of the petitioner and of the actions of the respondents in violation of all doctrines and principles applicable to the contract of service.

2. The petitioner herein was selected and appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon on 28.5.1955, a post borne in the cadre of State Health Services. The petitioner, however, found that he was entitled to be posted nest below his immediate senior in the service Dr. O.S. Chatterjee in the gradation list. He protested by tiling a suit bearing T.S. No. 21 of 1970 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Muzaffarpur. The said suit was decided on contest by a judgment dated 23.2.1983 by the Additional Munsif, Muzaffarpur, who held, inter alia, that the petitioner was entitled to be posted as Senior Medical Officer next to Dr. D.S. Chatterjee who was then Civil Surgeon and whose serial No. was 203 in the amalgamated Civil List published in the Gazette, dated 6.3.1963 and accordingly he is entitled to the salary etc. The learned Munsif ordered:

The defendant is directed to appoint the plaintiff in the light of above declaration within one month from the date of this order. In case of non-compliance of the order by the defendant the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get it complied through the process of the court.

3. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned Additional Munsif, the respondent-State filed an appeal bearing T.A. No. 15 of 1983 which was eventually heard by the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge Muzaffarpur, the appeal failed and the learned Munsifs decree was affirmed by the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge. The respondent-State then preferred a Second Appeal before this Court bearing Second Appeal No. 391 of 1983 which appeal also failed with the second affirmation of the decree of the learned Additional Munsif. The respondent-State was however, not satisfied. It moved the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.A. (Civil) No. 7711/84. The Supreme Court declined to grant Leave to Appeal and upheld the decree of the learned Additional Munsif by order dated 15.4.1985. Almost after one year of the rejection of the Special Leave Petition, the respondent-State issue a notification for modifying the combined gradation list to the extent that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 203 (Ka) in the combined gradation list but it did not give the petitioner any consequential benefit or any Super-time Selection Grade post to restore the position of the petitioner in the service below Dr. D.S. Chatterjee who was at Serial No. 203. The respondent sought the petitioner to be posted the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent in a Hospital at Hajipur in the district of Vaishali, a post at the lowest rung of the cadre although his juniors had already been posted to higher position in the service inasmuch as one Dr. Mahabir Das who was at Serial No. 307 in the Civil List that is to say, more than a hundred position lower than the petitions had already been appointed as Director-in-chief, Health Service, by a Notification dated 14.6.1986 and another person who was at Serial No. 377 was appointed Director, Health Services, by another Notification of the even date with the additional charge of the post of Additional Director by a notification dated 3.9.1986. The petitioner approached the Court to execute the decree and initiate a proceeding for crumpet of Court. The Executing Court, by an order dated 8.10.1986, made a reference to that effect before this Court. The reference has not yat been disposed of. The petitioner finding that the respondent were not considering his representation and that his retirement had almost arrived, has filed, as advised, the instant case.

4. On 22.1.1987, this Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and taking notice of the fact that the petitioner was goi


































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