Remanded

Amarnath Madhu v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2021WPC/1330/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ seeking quo warranto for quashing an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion to Inspector of Excise. The court noted the respondent failed to consider the 1992 circular regarding examination exemptions and remitted the matter for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is remitted to the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order reconsidering the claim in light of circular no. 3/R1-101/91-Ka-4674 dated 15.05.1992, preferably within four months.

Amarnath Madhu Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No.1330 of 2012

¶4

¶5

Amarnath Madhu … … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶10

Deputy Commissioner of Excise (HQ), Ranchi.

¶11

Superintendent of Excise, Gumla.

¶12

Superintendent of Excise, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. … … Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner :Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Adv. For the Res.State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I

¶17

¶18

12/18.02.2021

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties through

¶20

V.C.

¶21

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.1968 dated 2.09.2011 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the application/representation of the petitioner for consideration of his claim for grant of his promotion to the post of Inspector, Excise and second ACP benefits; has been rejected.

¶22

3. Apart from other grounds raised in the instant writ application; Mr. Afaque Ahmad learned counsel for the

¶23

¶24

petitioner confines his argument only on the issue that as per the Government circular as contained in Memo No.11691 dated 09.11.1983; an employee is exempted from the departmental examination and this ground has not been considered by the Respondent authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

¶25

4. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent-State after seeking instructions; referred to a subsequent circular being 3/R1-101/91-Ka-4674 dated 15.05.1992 and sent the said document through e-mail which has been taken on record.

¶26

He contended that the contention of the

¶27

petitioner that the moment he attained 50 years of age, he has been exempted from passing of departmental examination, is misconceived; inasmuch as, by the subsequent circular which is dated 15.05.1992, there are 5 to 6 criteria in which it has been specifically stated that if the petitioner had tried his level best to pass the examination but he could not pass up till 50 years of his age and in the preceding five years there is no examination; only then the employee can get the benefit of exemption from passing of departmental examination.

¶28

He further submits that as per the said circular, the competent authority to grant exemption is “Secretary” of the department and the exemption from the departmental examination shall not be compulsory; rather it will be in the discretion of the competent authority by

¶29

¶30

looking to the career etc. of the particular person. As such the contention of the petitioner and his reliance on the circular dated 09.11.1983 is misconceived in view of the subsequent circular dated 15.05.1992; as such, the instant writ application deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents specially the subsequent circular being 3/R1-101/91-Ka-4674 dated 15.05.1992, whereby the earlier circular dated 09.11.1983 has been superseded and several criteria has been incorporated in the subsequent circular with regards to giving exemption to any employee from passing of the examination.

¶32

After going through the impugned order, it appears that the ground of exemption from passing the departmental examination has not been considered by the respondents.

¶33

In this view of the matter, without issuing any mandamus and without giving any finding as to whether the petitioner is entitled for promotion or not; the instant writ application is remitted back to the respondent no.3, who shall pass a fresh order in the light of subsequent circular being circular no. 3/R1-101/91-Ka-4674 dated 15.05.1992.

¶34

It goes without saying that the fresh order shall be passed without being prejudiced with the earlier order dated 02.09.2011 and since the matter is very old; as such

¶35

¶36

it is expected that the respondent no.3 shall pass a fresh order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order after giving opportunity to the petitioner.

¶37

The petitioner shall also be at liberty to file a detailed representation in the light of the subsequent circular before the respondent no.3.

¶38

6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶39

Fahim /-

Amarnath Madhu v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Madhu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandauri Ram Agrwal Vs Central Coalfield Limited And or

Kuldip Mishra Vs Education

Ram Bishun Singh Vs Forest

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Siyaram Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Poulus Horo And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.