Allowed

Ajay Kumar Das v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Jan 2010CWJC/16537/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged denial of promotion to Superintendent of Excise due to pendency of criminal case. Petitioner had ad hoc promotion despite case pendency under 11.9.2002 circular. Court directed respondents to consider representation within four months relying on circular and prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Consider and dispose of representation for promotion to Superintendent of Excise within four months of order receipt.

Ajay Kumar Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CWJC No.16537 of 2009

¶3

AJAY KUMAR DAS S/O LATE BASUDEO DAS R/O VILL-BELTHU, P.SSHAHKUND, DISTT- BHAGALPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS EXCISE INSPECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,

¶4

Versus

¶5

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, REGISTRATION AND EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶6

THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA

¶7

SRI SUNIL KUMAR S/O NAME NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE MADHEPURA

¶8

SRI BHAGWAN RAI S/O NAME NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KHAGARIA

¶9

SRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O NAME NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE SAHARSA

¶10

SRI RAMJI KUWER S/O NAME NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE UNITED SPRIT LTD. HATHIDAH, PATNA 7. SRI SAROJ KUMAR S/O NAME NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE MUZAFFARPUR

¶11

SRI PREMCHAND SHAHU S/O NAME NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KATIHAR

¶12

¶13

13.1.2010 State.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶15

The petitioner claims the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Excise. He has been made an accused in a criminal case in the year, 2003, which he states, is unduly pending with no fault attributable to him. Notwithstanding, the pendency of the criminal case in accordance with Government instruction dated 11.9.2002, he

¶16

has already been considered and promoted as Inspector (Excise) on ad hoc basis on 8.9.2006, in light of the aforesaid circular but is being denied consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Excise on grounds of the pendency

¶17

¶18

of the same criminal case even while his juniors are being considered.

¶19

He relies upon a judgment of this Court in 2009(4) PLJR 556 that the pendency of a criminal case was not a bar to the consideration of his case for ad hoc promotion in terms of the Government circular dated 11.9.2002.

¶20

The petitioner is stated to have represented for the purpose on 16.3.2009.

¶21

Let his representation be considered and disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order in light of the Government circular dated 11.9.2002 and the ad hoc promotion given to him as Inspector (Excise) alleged to have been subsequently made permanent also on 1.2.2008.

¶22

Let the same be done within a maximum period of

¶23

four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶24

The writ application stands disposed.

¶25

P. Kumar

¶26

(Navin Sinha, J.)

Ajay Kumar Das v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Das v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bali Mahto Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kripa Shankar Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bhagwati Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Munna Paswan and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shashikala Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bateshwar Tudu Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.