This single-judge court examined whether the Finance Department's refusal to grant pay benefits for a petitioner's notional promotion violated a prior order. The judge noted a contradiction between a past satisfaction on promotion compliance and the current denial of consequential benefits, directing an inquiry into potential criminal contempt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P.(S) No. 7889 of 2012
Manmohan Jee Petitioner.
Versus
------ CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K.Pathak For the Respondents : Mr.JC to AG.
06/03.03.2016. It appears that at the earlier occasion while the petitioner was in service, he filed a writ petition vide W. P.(S) No.1219/2005 for issuance of a writ commanding the respondent/State to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect from 1994.
2. It then appears that the aforesaid writ application has been disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2008 with the following direction :
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents no.3 and 4 shall take a decision calling upon the service records from the State of Bihar and consider the grievance of the petitioners for their promotion retrospectively from 1994 in terms of the privilege granted to Gangeshwar Sharma and others in accordance with the regulation adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee ( Annexure-1) and effectively communicated to the petitioners the decision taken on their representation. This exercise must be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. It further appears that when the aforesaid order has not been complied by the respondent/State, petitioner filed a contempt application vide Contempt Case (C) No. 124 of 2009. The said contempt application has been disposed of on 16.11.2009 by passing the following order :
"By their show-cause replies, the respondents claim to have complied with the directions contained in the order dated 20.09.2008 by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1219 of 2005 in as much as,
-2- W.P.(S) No. 7889 of 2012
the concerned authorities have considered the grievance of the petitioners for their promotion retrospectively, from 01.06.1994 and have granted them promotion from 01.06.1994, as has been given to their co-employee Gangeshwar Sharma and the order to this effect has been notified on 2nd of September, 2009
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes by contending that the compliance has not been made in terms of the directions contained in the order. Learned counsel would want to explain that though, by the aforementioned Notification, the respondents have granted promotion to the petitioners with retrospective effect, but such promotion has been declared to be notional, suggesting thereby that consequential benefits of promotion has been denied to the petitioners, although such benefits have been extended to other employee, namely, Gangeshwar Sharma.
As it appears, the respondents have, by taking a decision upon the grievance of the petitioners for their promotion from 1994, have complied with the directions of this Court. The decision to treat the promotion from 1994 implies that the petitioners would be entitled to the consequential benefits thereof, to which the petitioners would be legally eligible. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/Respondents would assure that the respondents would issue further instructions to the concerned department for revising the pension to be fixed for the petitioners in consonance to the promotions granted to them on the manner stated. I am satisfied from the show-cause replies that the directions as contained in the impugned order, has been complied with by the respondents. The petitioners , if aggrieved or dissatisfied, shall beat liberty to agitate before the concerned autorities, raising their further grievance, if any, and shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal.
I do not find any reason to retain the instant contempt application on board. Accordingly, this contempt application is dropped."
4. After passing the aforesaid order, the Administrative Department of the petitioner had referred the matter to the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand for its opinion as to whether while fixing the pay of the petitioner, benefit of retrospective promotion should be given or not ? The Finance Department vide memo no. 1546/M dated 21.07.2011 (impugned order) has opined that in view of the Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code, while fixing the pay of the petitioner , the benefit of notional promotion with effect
-3- W.P.(S) No. 7889 of 2012
from 01.06.1994 could not be given to the petitioner. Thus, in my view, if the above benefit will not be given to the petitioner, then virtually the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand had withdrawn the promotion of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1994, which is against the submission made by the State Government in this court in the aforesaid contempt application. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the State Government in the said contempt proceeding has made a wrong submission in this court that petitioner has been promoted with effect from 01.06.94 and if it is so,then the same will amount to criminal contempt of this Court.
5. Under the said circumstance, I direct the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand to file counter-affidavit-cumshow cause as to why a criminal contempt be not initiated against it.
6. As prayed by Junior counsel to Advocate General, put up this case on 07.04.2016 .
( Prashant Kumar,J.)
Raman/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Finance Department's opinion denying pay benefits for notional promotion constitutes criminal contempt of the High Court's earlier directions.
Whether the State's previous submission in a contempt proceeding was factually incorrect regarding the grant of promotion benefits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manmohan Jee
State of Jharkhand
Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi
Deputy Secretary, Deptt. of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
