Allowed

Umanand Roy v. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Jharkhand HC12 Jul 2019WPC/3129/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand held that a petitioner, who held current charge of Electrical Superintending Engineer via authorized departmental committee recommendation, is entitled to regular promotion retrospective to the date of that charge, considering other similarly situated employees received similar benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with direction to respondent to pass an appropriate order considering petitioner's officiating period and granting promotion from 01.08.2007 within eight weeks.

Umanand Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 3129 of 2009

¶3

Umanand Roy, son of Late Sadanand Roy, resident of City Palace, Block A, Flat No. 131, Behind D.S. Tower, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur, District- Saraikella Kharsawan … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Abhiyantran Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi through its Chairman

¶6

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Abhiyantran Bhawan HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

The Additional Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Abhiyantran Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi … Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

-----

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-JSEB : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate

¶11

07/12.07.2019. Heard Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amitabh learned counsel appearing for the respondentJharkhand State Electricity Board.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the respondents to grant regular promotion to the petitioner on the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer from the date he was allowed to hold the current charge of the Electrical Superintending Engineer i.e. with effect from 01.08.2007 or from the date when the vacancy occurred.

¶13

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Engineer Assistant on 29.01.1975 and thereafter he was promoted to different posts and finally he was allowed to hold the current charge of the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer with immediate effect by notification dated 01.08.2007

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that current charge of the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer was given to the petitioner after recommendation of duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee after following due procedure for grant of regular promotion. The petitioner was further transferred and posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer-1, RE,

¶15

-2-

¶16

Board Headquarters at Ranchi where he joined immediately.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was fully entitled for grant of regular promotion to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer, but the same was not being granted to the petitioner. There is no laches on the part of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was given regular promotion on the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer with immediate effect by notification dated 25.11.2008 without considering his seniority and holding the current charge of a higher post for more than one year and four months.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that other employees of the Board have been given promotion with retrospective effect, which is apparent from Annexures- 3 and 4 annexed with this writ petition. He further submits that since the petitioner was fulfilling all the criteria that is why he was recommended to be posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer on current charge, thereafter he was given regular promotion with effect from 25.11.2008 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for promotion with effect from 01.08.2007.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another v. Dharam Pal reported in (2017) 9 SCC 395 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that if the person working as officiating in-charge and thereafter promoted to function on higher pay scale, he is entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of the officiating post.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. Amitabh learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board submits that the petitioner has worked only as officiating in-charge on that post and that is why after taking into

¶21

-3-

¶22

consideration that period, subsequently promotion was given to the petitioner to that post with effect from 25.11.2008. He further submits that the prayer of the petitioner is not tenable. He relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry v. Ramakrishnan reported in 2005 (8) SCC 394 and submitted that Hon'ble the Supreme Court after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the applicant was only holding the current charge of the duties of the post of Chief Engineer which does not confer on him any right to be considered for the post and, therefore, the averments made by the applicant that he is eligible and qualified for the post and that the respondents have not given wide publicity for filling up the vacancy and statutory rules, have not been followed on that basis.

¶23

This fact is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in this case the name of the petitioner was recommended by the competent authority for holding the post on current charge and thereafter he was given regular promotion on that post.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board has relied upon another case rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma reported in 1993 (Supp3) SCC 252 .

¶25

This case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. On that case, the petitioner was not promoted on higher post and he was merely asked to work on current duty charge to that post and subsequently he has been withdrawn from that post and as such Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that he was not entitled to be promoted.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the

¶27

-4-

¶28

petitioner has been asked to work as current charge of the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer after recommendation of duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee after following the due procedure for grant of regular promotion. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer with effect from 25.11.2008, but his past services worked as officiating capacity has not been considered. In view of Annexures- 3 and 4, other similarly situated persons have been given promotion with retrospective effect. Thus, there is no reason as to why the petitioner will not be entitled for taking into account his services which he worked as officiating capacity with effect from 01.08.2007 and also taking into account the judgment rendered in State of Punjab and another v. Dharam Pal (supra), this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶30

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶31

Ajay/

Umanand Roy v. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umanand Roy v. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

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

Ram Jas Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Man Mohan Jha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Abdul Hakim Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Baldeo Prasad Jaiswal Vs Provident Fund Commissioner

Umanand Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Ajeet Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.