Disposed

Akshaibat Prasad And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2019WPC/3026/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking Assured Career Progression and time-bound promotion for Class IV employees appointed in 1980. The court directed the State to consider the petitioners' case in light of a similar order in another matter and extend relief if their situation is comparable.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Ranchi Division to consider the petitioners case in light of W.P.(S) No. 5259 of 2007 and extend relief if applicable within eight

Akshaibat Prasad And Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3026 of 2011

¶2

Akshaibat Prasad, son of Late Shiv Charan Prasad, resident of Booty, P.O. Booty, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi

¶3

Ram Chandra Ram, son of Late Ram Narayan Ram, resident of Moti Street behind Sati Mandir, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi

¶4

Yogendra Thakur, son of Late Sital Dhari Thakur, resident of LIG-261 (B), Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Secretary cum Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Ranchi Division, Ranchi

¶10

... ... Respondents

¶11

------

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

----- For the Petitioners : Absent For the Respondents : Mr. Shyam Sunder Prasad, J.C. to S.C.III

¶14

----- 03/Dated 15^th July, 2019

¶15

Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

¶16

1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction to provide the benefit of 1^st and 2^nd Assured Career Progression/time bound promotion to the petitioners taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1980, but till the date of filing of the writ petition they have not been provided any promotion.

¶17

It is averred in the writ petition that in the year 1978-79, there was need of persons for the duty of clerk and accordingly an internal advertisement was made inviting applications from those persons working on ClassIV post. The petitioners, who were working on Class IV posts, applied in response to the said advertisement. It is also averred that the State Government had sanctioned 45 posts of clerk. The petitioners have claimed that they are entitled for ACP/Time Bound Promotion.

¶18

In Paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition, it has been stated that petitioners’ case is on the same footing of one Mr. Yogender Prasad, who had also been denied the benefits of ACP and who has approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5259 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2008, with a direction to consider the case of Mr. Yogender Prasad within stipulated time.

¶19

-2-

¶20

Mr. Yogender Prasad had been confirmed from the date of his initial appointment and he was also given the benefits of the ACP under the Assured Career Progression scheme.

¶21

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that services of the petitioners have not been regularised as services of such employees appointed during the said period have neither been regularised nor confirmed and consequently, the benefit of time bound promotion/A.C.P. has not been extended to such employees, including the petitioners.

¶22

3. Be that as it may, in view of averments in Paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that one similarly situated person, viz. Mr. Yogender Prasad has been granted A.C.P. benefits, Respondent No. 3 is, hereby, directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the case of Mr. Yogender Prasad and if the case of the petitioners is found to be on the same footing of Mr. Yogender Prasad, same relief be extended to the petitioners within eight weeks thereafter.

¶23

4. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

s.m.

Akshaibat Prasad And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshaibat Prasad And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldeo Prasad Jaiswal Vs Provident Fund Commissioner

Umanand Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Umanand Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Dr Ram Prakash Verma and Ors. Vs Health

Ranu Kumari Sharma Vs Agriculture Department

Kavilas Prasad Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.