Allowed

Binay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2024WPC/5010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought promotion to Assistant Engineer, claiming juniors were promoted while his case was ignored for want of ACR, whose custodian is the State. The Court held the right of consideration accrues when juniors are promoted and directed consideration from the date juniors were promoted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's promotion to Assistant Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted, subject to eligibility criteria, within six weeks.

Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5010 of 2024

¶2

Binay Kumar aged about 39 years, S/o Late Nandu Ram, presently, posted at-Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, District-Latehar.

¶3

....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand;

¶6

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at- Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶7

The Secretary, Water Resources Department, having its office at- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi;

¶8

The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, having its office at- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi;

¶9

The Under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi;

¶10

The Engineer in Chief-1, Department of Water Resource, having its office at- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi;

¶11

Satyadev Paswan S/O not known to the petitioner, presently working under the Secretary of Rural Works Department, having its office at- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi;

¶12

....Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to G.P.-II

¶15

02/Dated: 10.09.2024

¶16

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶17

2. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction upon the respondent-State to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, as several other juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide Notification No. 02/09-01/2023 dated 30.12.2023. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the said Notification dated 30.12.2023.

¶18

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, but merely in absence of ACR of the petitioner, his case could not be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. He submits that, admittedly; the custodian of the ACR is the State/Department and it is not a business of the employee to keep the ACR with him. He further contended that never any communication was made by the Department as to whether the ACR was in favour of the petitioner or any adverse remark is there. The entire service records of the petitioner was unblemished and as such, a direction be given to the respondentState to consider his case for promotion from the date the juniors to him were promoted.

¶19

4. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though counter-affidavit has not been filed, however, the case of the petitioner will be considered as per the applicable rules and regulations.

¶20

5. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that though the promotion is not a right of an employee, but the right of consideration is accrued when junior to the concerned employee has been considered for promotion. The respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner only on the ground of non-availability of ACR. Admittedly, the custodian of the ACR is the Department/ State and it is not supposed to be kept by the employee. It is also not a case of the respondents that there is any adverse remark against the petitioner.

¶21

6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts of this case, I hereby direct the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date his juniors have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, if there is no other legal impediment, and subject to fulfilment of all eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer by the petitioner.

¶22

Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of

¶23

¶24

six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶25

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶26

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶27

vikas/-

¶28

Binay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Suraj Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Shabnam Tuti Vs State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Ravi Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhi Kant Hari Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sobran Mahto Vs Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank Head Office Ranchi through Its Chairman