Allowed

Ramendra Narayan Barman v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Mar 2019WP(C)/900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the petitioner's promotion considering his eligibility and impending retirement. The Court directed the authorities to hold the DPC within three months, clarifying that incomplete departmental opinions cannot justify undue delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing the respondent authority to convene the DPC within three months from the date of the order and issue consequential orders.

Ramendra Narayan Barman Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010023362019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 900/2019

¶5

1:RAMENDRA NARAYAN BARMAN

¶6

S/O- LATE HARENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN, R/O- H NO. 9, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, BAMUNIMAIDAM, P.O AND P.S- CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI06

¶10

2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06

¶11

3:SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 0

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J CHUTIYA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 13-03-2019

¶18

Heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for all the respondents

¶19

This is the second time the petitioner is approaching this Court for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his promotion to the higher post of Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical).

¶20

The petitioner is serving as a Superintendant Engineer on substantive basis since 2016. It is stated that he is now eligible for promotion to the higher post of Additional Chief Engineer.

¶21

In that connection, the petition had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP (C) 4611/2018 which was disposed of on 20.07.2018, with the direction to the respondent authorities to convene a DPC on or before 25.07.2018 to consider the case of the petitioner, and also with the observation that the DPC shall take a decision with regard to the non communicated ACRs of the petitioner whenever such consideration is made.

¶22

According to the petitioner in-spite of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court on 20.07.2018, the authority have not convened the DPC and since the petitioner is going to retire from service on 31.10.2019, he is approaching this Court again.

¶23

Learned standing counsel for the Irrigation Department on instruction submits that the said DPC could not be convened in view of incomplete opinion from the Judicial as well as from the Welfare of Backward Classes Department.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

This Court is of the view that, that may not be proper ground for undue delay in holding the DPC, considering the fact that this Court had already issued direction in this regard as early as on 20.07.2018. Since more than eight months have passed, the authority ought to have taken necessary decision in this regard.

¶26

Be that as it may, since it is now well settled that the right of consideration of a person who is eligible for promotion is now a fundamental right, the same cannot be denied or delayed on the ground of incomplete opinion from any Department and it is the duty/obligation of the authorities to ensure that DPC is held without any further delay.

¶27

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also, as this Court had issued a direction on earlier occasion, as referred to above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authority to convene the DPC within a time bound period, preferably within three months from today and issue the consequential orders. In the mean time, the authorities concerned will take necessary steps whether by way of taking opinion from the concerned Department or not for holding the DPC. It is also made clear that failure to give proper advice by any department shall not be a ground to delay convening of the DPC as directed above.

¶28

The present petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Ramendra Narayan Barman v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramendra Narayan Barman v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Assam Forest Service (Class-I) Association and Anr. Vs Ashok Lavasa and 13 Ors.

Assam Forest Service Class-I Association and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ranjan Adhikary Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Shyamali Sarkar Vs Biren Bhattacharyya and 2 Ors.

Jayanta Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mahesh Barkataki Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.