Disposed

Shailesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Land and Revenue Deptt

Jharkhand HC10 Jan 2023WPC/5169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for promotion to UDC after punishment for unauthorized absence was recalled, while other LDCs were promoted. Court directed petitioner to file representation with Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration and promised consequential benefits if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to approach Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa with documents within four weeks for fresh consideration of promotion case with priority.

Shailesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand through… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No. 5169 of 2022

¶2

Shailesh Kumar Sharma...

¶3

….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Land & Revenue Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶6

The Commissioner, Palamau Division, Mediningar, Palamau.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.

¶8

The Establishment Deputy Collector, Garhwa.

¶9

The Block Development Officer, Kharaundhi, Garhwa.… Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶11

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV AC to GP-VI.

¶12

3/10.01.2023:

¶13

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶14

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of his promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) from the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) as all other contenders i.e. who were working in the post of LDC, have been granted their promotion.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter No. 264(ka) dated 8.4.2017, by way of punishment, one day's salary of the petitioner, for unauthorised absence, was forfeited. As a result of this punishment, He was not considered for promotion. Counsel for the petitioner refers page 47 of the petition in support his contention. It is his further case that all other LDCs have been granted promotion, leaving out the petitioner on the ground mentioned above, which is also apparent from the resolution at page 61 of the petition. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the stoppage of one day's salary was recalled vide Memo No. 538 (Stha.) dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). When the order of forfeiture of one day's salary has been recalled on 14.10.2020, which was the sole ground for non-considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of UDC, the petitioner should have been promoted from the date when others got promoted.

¶16

The counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner should approach the Deputy Commissioner Garhwa, who will consider the case of the petitioner and if necessary will place his case before the Promotion Committee.

¶17

Admittedly, the petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk. His case was considered for promotion, but promotion was not granted on the ground that there is an order passed by the competent authority by which, one day's salary of the petitioner was forfeited on the ground of unauthorized absence. More than 25 LDCs were granted their promotion but the petitioner was left out, which is apparent from page 61 of the petition. In the said order, which is at page 61, the ground for non-considering the case of the petitioner has been mentioned as his

¶18

¶19

salary for one day was forfeited. There is a letter, which has been brought on record vide Memo No. 538 (Stha.) dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), which suggests that the order by which, the one day's salary of the petitioner was forfeited, stood recalled and approval has been accorded to pay the day's salary to the petitioner.

¶20

When the order by which, the petitioner was punished, has been recalled and that was the only impediment for not granting promotion to the petitioner, this Court feels that the case of the petitioner needs to be reconsidered, as other LDCs have been promoted to the post of UDC. I find that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered, which means that the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration of promotion.

¶21

In view of what has been held above, I direct the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa by way of filing a representation annexing all the documents which the petitioner relies upon within four weeks. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa will consider the case of the petitioner afresh and place his case before the Establishment Committee, if necessary, who will reconsider the case of the petitioner taking into consideration Memo No. 538 (Stha.) dated 14.10.2020 by which, one day's salary of the petitioner was directed to be paid after recalling the forfeiture order. It is expected that an appropriate order will be passed within four weeks, thereafter. The reasoned order should also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶22

It is made clear that If the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit, as granted to the others, same and similar benefit be granted to him also along with all consequential benefits.

¶23

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of .

¶24

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶25

Anu/-CP2.

Shailesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Land and Revenue Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Land and Revenue Deptt

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

Anita Srivastava Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Dr Akash Bhengra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Cooperative

Branch Manager Megma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. Representing through Safdar Ismail Vs Sitara Bibi

Jyoti Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Dr Rajeev Rajan Vs the State of Jharkhand