Disposed

Nirmal Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2022WPC/1418/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an office order granting promotion to a junior with an earlier effective date. Court held merits unclear and disposed of petition by directing respondent to consider grievance and pass reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file detailed representation; respondent directed to consider case, hear petitioner/junior, and pass reasoned order within three months.

Nirmal Kumar Gupta Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (S) No. 1418 of 2019

¶4

Nirmal Kumar Gupta, aged about 54 years, son of Late Rameshwar Saw, resident of Old B.S. College, P.O., P.S. & District Latehar

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C., Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶8

The Director, Department of School Education and Literacy (Primary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C., Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Education Establishment Committee, Latehar, P.O. P.S. & District-Latehar.

¶10

The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District Latehar. … … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

¶13

Through Video Conferencing

¶14

06/15.02.2022

¶15

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Kumar is present.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) Mr. P. C. Roy is also present.

¶17

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶18

“for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing of the part of the office order contained in Memo No. 1272 dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure-4) in so far as relates to the petitioner and to the extent that the promotion to Grade IV shall be given to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and whereas persons junior to the petitioner have already been promoted in Grade-IV from an earlier date superseding the petitioner.

¶19

AND/OR

¶20

The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate and suitable direction or command upon the Respondents to shift the date of promotion of the petitioner in Grade-IV, from due date of eligibility in terms of ‘1993’ Rules Or At least from the date the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted and allowed the monetary benefits of the promoted post/grade.

¶21

AND/OR

¶22

The Petitioner prays for passing of any other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments, has submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be

¶24

¶25

compared with that of another person, namely, Mr. Satish Kumar. He submits that the petitioner as well as Mr. Satish Kumar, both belong to general category as is apparent from Annexures 3 and 4 of the present writ petition and both of them were selected by one selection process as Matric Trained Teacher in the year 1994. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner as well as Mr. Satish Kumar has taken inhouse training and the petitioner had completed the training on 03.05.2002 and Mr. Satish Kumar had completed training on 25.08.2003. Learned counsel submits that both the petitioner as well as Mr. Satish Kumar were promoted to Grade-II in the year 2006. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the merit list in the ranking in the exam conducted by B.P.S.C., the petitioner had better rank than Satish Kumar and accordingly, he submits that the petitioner, for all purposes, is senior to Mr. Satish Kumar.

¶26

5. So far as the promotion to grade-IV is concerned, the petitioner refers to Annexure-4 and submits that while considering the promotion to Grade-IV, the petitioner has been given the date of promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and Mr. Satish Kumar has been given the date of promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and both the petitioner and Mr. Satish Kumar were promoted to Grade-IV by the same process. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely clueless as to why the petitioner has been given promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2015, whereas Mr. Satish Kumar has been given promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2004. He also submits that even if it is assumed that there was only limited vacancy with effect from the year 2004, then it was the petitioner who should have been placed in the year 2004, as the petitioner is senior to Mr. Satish Kumar even in the rank of B.P.S.C (Bihar Public Service Commission). The learned counsel submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioner may also be granted promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and be granted the same benefit as has been confirmed to Mr. Satish Kumar.

¶27

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, while opposing the prayer, has referred to para-16 of the counteraffidavit that the promotion has been granted on the basis of seniority roster and availability of different posts in different category to the eligible candidates. However, it is not clear from the counter-affidavit as

¶28

¶29

to how and in what manner, the case of the petitioner is treated differently with that of Mr. Satish Kumar, so far as the effective date of promotion is concerned.

¶30

7. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be remitted to the respondent No.-3 who may consider the grievance of the petitioner and may pass appropriate order.

¶31

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid alleged discrepancy which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., giving the date of promotion to Mr. Satish Kumar w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and giving the same to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2015, is not clear.

¶32

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent No.-3 within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No.-3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and if required also hear Mr. Satish Kumar and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation , after considering the points which may be raised by the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/parties . The respondent No.-3 is directed to communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner/parties through speed-post at their address to be mentioned in the representation/reply.

¶33

10. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case or otherwise of the claim of the rival parties.

¶34

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶35

12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed as not pressed.

¶36

Mukul

¶37

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Nirmal Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy

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

Muna Shaw and Ors. Vs Health

Ajit Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Lakhan Paswan Vs Chairman, Bank of India And Ors.

Ramakant Singh Vs Bihar State Road Transport Cor

Tana Bhagat Shist Mandali Comm Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Bela Jha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.