BAIDNATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
LAWS(JHAR)-2003-3-127
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on March 31,2003

Baidnath Mishra Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has praysed for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 275 dated 1.7.1995 issued by respondent No. 2, Superintendent Engineer, PHE Circle, Dhanbad, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of first time bound promotion has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the petitioner along with others was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk in 1979. In 1993 a seniority list was prepared wherein the petitioner was shown senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 6. On completion of 10 years of service the petitioner filed a representation on 11.12.1989 for grant of first time bound promotion. It is contended that no decision was taken by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner and in the meantime respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were granted first time bound promotion ignoring the case of the petitioner. The respondents in their counter -affidavit have stated that the petitioner and the concerned respondents were appointed in Class -III post in the years 1979 and 1980 in the scale of Rs. 220 -315. The said scale was subsequently merged on 1.5.1980 @ 260 -408 which was again revised w.e.f. 1.4.1981 at Rs. 730.1080. The petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 were given benefits of that revised scale w.e.f. 1.4.1981. The stand of the respondents is that as per the circular dated 30.12.1981 of the Finance Department whereby it has been clerks mentioned that those junior account clearly appointed in the scale of Rs. 220 -315/ - and who have availed the merger scale of Rs. 260 -408 (revised to 730 -1080) are not entitled to get first time bound promotion. The aforesaid circular was communicated to all the Superintending Engineers. It is contended by the respondents that promotion was wrongly given to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and for that appropriate action has already been taken for recalling the order of promotion and recovery of the benefits given to those respondents.
(3.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Metha, learned counsel for the respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.