Petitioner sought ad hoc promotion despite a pending criminal case as juniors received it. Court directed authorities to consider his case under 2008 State guidelines and pass a reasoned order after receiving annexed guidelines.
Directions issued to file guidelines and respondent authorities to pass reasoned order on ad hoc promotion consideration.
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. 312 of 2020
Anil Kumar
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Subham Mishra, AC to SC-II
02/ 06.02.2020 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion w.e.f. 18.05.2013, on the higher post of Assistant Settlement Officer, w.e.f. the date juniors to him have been considered and granted promotion.
3. As per the factual matrix, petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.1600-50-2150-60-2780 w.e.f. 16.09.1991. Later on, post of Assistant Consolidation Officer was merged with the cadre of Circle Inspectors and the petitioner was posted as Circle Inspector in the office of Commissioner, Sought Chhotanagpur on 25.07.1995. After re-organization of the State of Bihar, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the Jharkhand Revenue Cadre. Since his appointment, petitioner has worked to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. During the service period, a CBI case, bearing No. RC-04(A)-10, was lodged against the petitioner and others and subsequently, sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was given by the State Govt. on 25.07.2012. A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) was held on 18.05.2013, in which promotions to the higher post of Assistant Settlement Officer (for short ‘ASO’) from the post of Circle Inspectors was considered. In the aforesaid DPC, juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion to the post of ASO but petitioner’s case was kept in sealed cover on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. Although, more than 10 years have elapsed but neither the criminal
2
case has not been concluded nor the sealed cover has been opened for consideration of his case for ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer. Subsequently, on 06.11.2019, further DPC was held for consideration of fresh cases for promotion but the case of the petitioner though considered but again the same is kept in sealed cover and no consideration was shown for opening the sealed cover of the petitioner. Since no decision has been taken for promotion, the petitioner moved before the respondent-authorities by filing several representations but no heed was paid and as such, writ petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.
4. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for ad hoc promotion in view of the guidelines of the State Govt. Learned counsel drawing the attention of the Court towards Clause-5 of the Sankalp No. 6227 dated 20.11.2008, submits that in view of the said Clause, petitioner is entitled for ad hoc promotion and hence, a direction be given to the respondent-authorities to consider his case for ad hoc promotion in view of Clause-5 of Sankalp dated 20.11.2008.
5. Mr. Subham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentState very fairly submits that in absence of counter-affidavit, he is not in a position to say as to why the case of the petitioner has still been kept in sealed cover and the guidelines given in Clause-5 of the aforesaid Sankalp of the respondents has not been taken into consideration, which talks of opening of sealed cover and consideration for ad hoc promotion, when criminal case is not concluded for a long period.
6. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion and the DPC kept it in sealed cover for fresh consideration in future. However, when a fresh DPC was held, the case of the petitioner was not considered, rather, again it was kept in sealed cover. Though, there is a procedure in view of the guidelines of the State itself that during the pendency of the criminal case, if no decision has been taken by the respondent-authorities, the respondents may open the sealed cover and if the petitioner is found entitled, he may be considered for ad hoc promotion. The issue regarding ad-hoc promotion during the pendency of the criminal case fell
3
for consideration before this High Court in case of State of Jharkhand vs. Vinod Mani Diwakar and Ors., reported in 2010 (2) JLJR 89 , wherein, the Division Bench of this High Court affirmed the order of Central Administrative Tribunal holding therein that the petitioner was entitled for promotion as the criminal case which is pending for more than 20 long years has not been decided till date and as such the case of the petitioner cannot be ignored. In the instant case, a criminal case against the petitioner has been pending since 2010 and 10 years have elapsed but the respondents have not taken any decision regarding grant of ad hoc promotion of the petitioner. It would be apposite to direct the respondentauthorities to consider the case of the petitioner for ad hoc promotion during the pendency of the criminal case, as already the case of the petitioner has been recommended for promotion, though kept in sealed cover.
7. I hereby direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents annexing the guidelines of 2008 of State Govt., within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the same, respondents shall pass a reasoned order on his representation, within a period of three weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to ad hoc promotion while a criminal case against him is pending.
Whether the departmental authorities failed to consider sealed cover for petitioner despite guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jharkhand vs. Vinod Mani Diwakar and Ors.Referred¶19
2010 (2) JLJR 89
Anil Kumar
State of Jharkhand
The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
DR. S.N. PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
