Dismissed¶36

Dr.Sahdeo Das v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Jan 2025WPC/3532/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retrospective promotion denied to superannuated homeopathy diploma holder; promotion effective only from assumption of duties, not from vacancy date; Rule 58(a) Jharkhand Service Code 2001 analogous to Rule 54(1)(a) West Bengal Service Rules; reliance on State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath (1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 334 and application of Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3512; challenge to 25.5.1998 Patna Health Department order rejecting promotion representation fails; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 lays down a condition similar to the West Bengal Service Rules provisions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; therefore, the Supreme Court's judgment (in Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi) is applicable to this case as well.

Dr.Sahdeo Das Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3532 of 2008

¶2

------

¶3

Dr. Sahdeo Das, son of Late Bhaktu Das, resident of Village Kumarbad, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, at present posted as Homeopathic Compounder, at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Sinbhbhum.

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Health Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

2. Secretary, Health Department, Main Secretariat, at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶8

3. Director, Ayus, Health Department, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi.

¶9

4. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

------

¶12

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J

¶13

------

¶14

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate

¶15

Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I Mr. Ranjit Kumar, AC to GA (Bihar) Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate

¶16

------

¶17

30/ 15.01.2025

¶18

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has

¶19

sought for following reliefs:-

¶20

i. “For quashing order vide memo no. 16 / C-1-49 / 96 – 355 (Desi Chikitsha) Swasthya, Patna, dated 25.5.1998 (Annexure-12), whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner as directed by Hon’ble Patna High Court for consideration of the petitioner’s promotion has been rejected.

¶21

ii. For direction to respondents to consider the case of petitioner and to promote the petitioner w.e.f. the date from which juniors to him have been promoted i.e. from the year 1980 and also to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner.”

¶22

2. The petitioner seeks promotion from the post of Homeopathic Mishrak to the post of Homeopathic Doctor (Chikitsak). The petitioner is a homeopathy diploma holder who

¶23

¶24

seeks the aforesaid promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated from service.

¶25

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath & Ors. reported in (1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 334, has held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others.

¶26

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its very recent judgment in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3512 , has held that it is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself.

¶27

It has further been held at para-21 that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.

¶28

5. In the aforesaid judgment, the relevant provisions of Rule 54(1) (a) of the West Bengal Service Rules were considered, as per which, a person shall not draw any higher pay than his substantive pay in respect of the permanent post other than the regular post unless the officiating appointment involves assumption of duties.

¶29

¶30

6. Similar is the condition laid down under Rule 58 (a) of

¶31

The Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, which reads as follows:-

¶32

“ 58. (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of clause (b) of this rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties.”

¶33

7. Thus, the provision of law provided in the Jharkhand Service Code in Rule 58 (a) is similar to that of the Rules of West Bengal which has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, in my view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable in this case also.

¶34

8. Since the petitioner has superannuated, no relief can be

¶35