Allowed¶6

Bansh Lochan Ram v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2024WPC/5949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bansh Lochan Ram v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, W.P. (S) No. 5949 of 2018, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 13.08.2024 by Justice Ambuj Nath. Keywords: cancellation of promotion; demotion after retirement; Accounts Officer; Accountant; JUVNL; Notification/Memo No. 1857 dated 13.08.2008; corrigendum Memo No. 2148 dated 25.08.2008; Resolution No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018; promotion not provisional; no stipulation of approval by Competent Authority; unapproved Circular; hearing before demotion; quashed; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Resolution No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018 demoting the petitioner to the post of Accountant quashed; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶6

Bansh Lochan Ram Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; Resolution No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018 demoting the petitioner to the post of Accountant quashed; pending I.A., if any, disposed of.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the resolution bearing No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018 cancelling the petitioner's promotion to the post of Accounts Officer and demoting him to Accountant w.e.f. 13.08.2008 is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The promotion granted to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1857 dated 13.08.2008 was not provisional, and the promotion order contained no stipulation that it was subject to approval by the Competent Authority.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The respondents should not have promoted the petitioner at the first instance when the Circular on the basis of which he was promoted had not been approved by the Competent Authority.

¶5

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner had retired from the post of Accounts Officer, an order of demotion could not be passed after his retirement without giving him a proper hearing.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) — Writ petition by a retired employee challenging Resolution No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018 of the General Manager (Personnel-cum-General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, which cancelled his promotion to the reserved post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 13.08.2008 (Notification No. 1857 dated 13.08.2008; corrigendum Memo No. 2148 dated 25.08.2008) and demoted him to Accountant w.e.f. 13.08.2008, after his retirement on 31.12.2016 — Held: the promotion was not provisional and the promotion order contained no stipulation making it subject to approval by the Competent Authority; the respondents themselves ought not to have promoted the petitioner when the Circular on whose basis he was promoted stood unapproved; a demotion could not be imposed on a retired employee without proper hearing — Resolution No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018 quashed; writ petition allowed (Ambuj Nath, J.).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S)No. 5949 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Bansh Lochan Ram, aged about 62 years, son of Late Chamu Ram, resident of Harihar Singh Road, B.N. Bhonsle Gali, Morhabadi, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus -

¶6

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Chairman-cumManaging Director Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi

¶7

General Manager (Personnel cum General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi

¶8

Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, district-Ranchi

¶9

... … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : M/s. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate For the Resp.-JUVNL : M/s. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate

09/13.08.2024

Heard the parties

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for quashing of resolution Bearing No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018 (Annnexure-26) issued by the Respondent No. 2-General Manager (Personnel -cum- General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi, whereby and wherein, the promotion granted to the petitioner on the reserved post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 13.08.2008 vide Notification No. 1857 dated 13.08.2008, corrigendum bearing Memo No. 2148 dated 25.08.2008 has been cancelled and petitioner has been demoted to the post of Accountant w.e.f. 13.08.2008. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential reliefs.

¶18

The petitioner was initially appointed on 12.04.1978 to the post of Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer, Koelkaro Hydal Project, Harmu, Ranchi on the pay scale of Rs. 310-490/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was given promotion and also time-bound promotion. On 24.10.1998, he was promoted to the post of Accountant vide officer Order No. 4958 dated 24.10.1998 issued by the Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. After bifurcation of the State, Jharkhand State Electricity Board came into existence and the petitioner was

¶19

¶20

allotted Jharkhand Cadre. It is further case of the petitioner that on 13.08.2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer. The Petitioner has retired on 31.12.2016. The respondents after retirement of the petitioner, took a policy decision, as submitted by the learned lawyer for the respondents, that the recommendation regarding the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Accounts Officer was not in accordance with the Circular issued by the Department.

¶21

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Circular on the basis of which the petitioner was promoted was neither placed nor approved by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. As such, promotion given to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1857 dated 13.08.2008 was withdrawn and the petitioner was demoted to the post of Accountant .

¶22

The respondents have granted promotion to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1857 dated 13.08.2008. This promotion was not provisional. There was no stipulation in the promotion order that the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Accounts Officer was subject to approval by the Competent Authority. The petitioner has been demoted after two years of his retirement. The respondents should not have promoted the petitioner at the first instance when the Circular on the basis of which petitioner was promoted, was not approved by the Competent Authority. As the petitioner has retired from the post of Accounts Officer, the order of demotion of the petitioner cannot be passed after his retirement without giving proper hearing.

¶23

This Writ Petition is allowed. The resolution Bearing No. 1866 dated 05.09.2018 (Annnexure-26) passed by the Respondent No. 2-General Manager (Personnel -cum- General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi demoting the petitioner to the post of Accountant, is quashed.

¶24

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶26

Nandini/Uploaded

Bansh Lochan Ram v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansh Lochan Ram v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Lata Singh Vs the Kolhan University through Its Vice Chancellor

Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bishnu Kumar Vs Personnel And Adminis Reform

Anjali Panda Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Brajesh Kumar Paswan Vs the M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

Smt Sushila Devi Vs Ms Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director