Allowed

Binod Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC2 Aug 2010CWJC/2396/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petitions by Excise Constables seeking consideration for promotion to A.S.I. despite age of 50. Directed respondents to consider cases ignoring age bar, addressing grievances regarding date of promotion, within six months. Petitioners excluded if already promoted.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to consider petitioners for promotion to A.S.I. ignoring age bar of 50 years, addressing grievances on relevant dates, and pass orders within six months.

Binod Kumar 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.426 of 2010

¶3

1. AFTAB ALAM S/O MD. HAFIZ R/O MOHALLA- KHAJA SARAI, P.O. AND
P.S.- LAHERIA SARAI, DISTT. DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS
EXCISE CONSTABLE, C/O SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, EAST CHAMPARAN,
MOTIHARI

¶4

 Versus

¶5

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR,
PATNA

¶6

3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR,
PATNA

¶7

4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION,
BIHAR, PATNA

¶8

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI
 with

¶9

 CWJC No.2396 of 2010

¶10

1. BINOD KUMAR S/O SRI RAM EKBAL SHARMA R/O VILL

¶11

JHITAHIA,P.O.SAHILA,P.S.HATHORI,VIA HARIRAMPUR,DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR,
AT PRESENT WORKING AS EXCISE CONSTABLE C/O SUPERINTENDENT OF
EXCISE ,EAST CHAMPARAN,MOTIHARI

¶12

 Versus

¶13

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ,THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR,PATNA

¶14

2. THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION
BIHAR,PATNA

¶15

3. THE COMMISSIONER,DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION
BIHAR,PATNA

¶16

4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ,DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION
BIHAR,PATNA

¶17

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE EAST CHAMPARAN,MOTIHARI
 with

¶18

 CWJC No.4863 of 2010

¶19

1. GANESH RAI S/O LATE GOSAI RAI R/O VILL. AND P.O.- SATTAR
KATAIYA, VIA- PANCHDESIA, P.S.- BIHRA, DISTT.- SAHARSA, AT
PRESENT WORKING AS EXCISE CONSTABLE, C/O SUPERINTENDENT OF
EXCISE, MUNGER

¶20

 Versus

¶21

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR,
PATNA

¶22

3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA

¶23

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, MUNGER

¶24

 with
 CWJC No.5481 of 2010

¶25

1. UMA SHANKAR PRASAD RAI S/O SRI CHANDRADEO PRASAD RAI R/O
VILLAGE & P.O - BHARATHUA, P.S - AURAI, DISTRICT - MUZAFFARPUR,
AT PRESENT WORKING AS EXICISE CONSTABLE C/O SUPERINTENDENT OF
EXCISE, SAMASTIPUR.

¶26

¶27

Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR,THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY , BIHAR , PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR,

¶28

PATNA

¶29

3. THE COMMISSIONER,DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR,

¶30

PATNA

¶31

4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA

¶32

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE,SAMASTIPUR.

¶33

 with
 CWJC No.5646 of 2010

¶34

1. TRIBHUWAN CHOUDHARY S/O SRI MAHESHWAR CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.-
KHARAUNA JAIRAM, P.O. KHARAUNA DIH, P.S. KUDHANI, DISTT.-
MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING AS EXCISE CONSTABLE C/O
SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, KATIHAR

¶35

 Versus

¶36

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR,
PATNA

¶37

3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA

¶38

4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA

¶39

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, KATIHAR

¶40

 with
 CWJC No.5821 of 2010

¶41

1. RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE JAGGANATH MAHTO R/O VILL &

¶42

P.O.MADANPUR, VIA BAHADURPUR, P.S.BAHADURPUR, DISTT-DARBHANGA, AT
PRESENT WORKING AS EXCISE CONSTABLE C/O SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
SARAN AT CHAPRA

¶43

 Versus

¶44

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR, PATNA

¶45

2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION BIHAR,

¶46

PATNA

¶47

3. THE COMMISSIONER , DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION BIHAR, PATNA

¶48

4. THE JOINT -COMMISSIONER , DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION BIHAR, PATNA

¶49

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE SARAN, CHAPRA

¶50

 with
 CWJC No.6506 of 2010

¶51

1. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.-
BUDHAMA, P.O. KHARA BUDHAMA, P.S. UDAKISHANGANJ, DISTT.-
MADHEPURA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS EXCISE CONSTABLE C/O
SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SAHARSA

¶52

 Versus

¶53

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA

¶54

2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION BIHAR, PATNA

¶55

3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA

¶56

¶57

4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA

¶58

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SAHARSA
 with
 CWJC No.6745 of 2010

¶59

1. MD. SHAFIUR RAHMAN S/O MD. ZAFAR R/O MOHALLA- TATA KAMBAL SHAH
ROAD, P.S. SADAR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING AS
EXCISE CONSTABLE, C/O SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, PURNEA
 Versus

¶60

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA

¶61

3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, PURNEA ----------- 4/ 02/08/2010 At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has received instructions, though not complete, that some of the petitioners have been considered for promotion. Needless to state that those who have been promoted during the pendency of the writ application fall outside the purview of the present order.

¶62

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has filed the counter affidavit in three writ applications i.e. C.W.J.C. No.4863/10, 5821/10 and 5646/10 on 29.7.2010. The same is not available on record. The office

¶63

is directed to trace the same and place the same on record. The Court therefore requested the learned counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that

¶64

¶65

ground.

¶66

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶67

The relief claimed in this batch of writ applications is common. They are therefore being disposed by this common order.

¶68

Counter affidavit has been filed in some of the applications only. The petitioners are Excise Constables. They claim to be considered for promotion to the post of A.S.I. (Excise). It is their case that vacancies for such promotion have existed since 1994 up to the year 2005 up to which no promotions have been made.

¶69

The next submission is that those who have crossed the age of 50 years cannot be debarred from consideration for promotion on account of the lapses of the respondents in making regular promotions in time.

¶70

It is submitted that the issue has been considered by this Court in detail in C.W.J.C. No.14908/04 which was also approved by the Apex Court also in S.L.P. (Civil) No.23005/07.

¶71

Learned counsel for the State relies upon a counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No.4863/10, one amongst this batch, to submit that cases for promotion were under consideration, but such consideration has to be done in context of availability of vacancies.

¶72

¶73

Though there may be no right to promotion, there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion in time. However, if such consideration is not done in time, and no remedy is pursued by the aggrieved, the time which passes shall naturally operate to the prejudice of the aggrieved.

¶74

These writ applications are therefore disposed with the direction to the respondents to consider the case for promotion of the petitioners to the post of A.S.I. (Excise), ignoring the age bar of 50 years imposed for the purpose. While making such consideration, the respondents are required to adequately consider issues of the date from which a junior to a petitioner has been promoted, if any. If such promotion has been granted to a junior, did the petitioner raise a grievance co-terminus to such promotion or prior to such promotion. A belated grievance raised cannot be sufficient justification to disturb a promotion granted earlier.

¶75

In this manner, this Court directs the cases of the petitioners to be considered and promotion granted from the relevant dates when the date on which a petitioner started pursuing his grievance shall be a relevant consideration, be completed and final appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/presentation of a

¶76

¶77

copy of this order.

¶78

The writ application stands disposed. ( Navin Sinha, J.)

¶79

Binod Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shasibhusan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manju Kumari and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Raman Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Central English School Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rehana Khatoon and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sakaldeo Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.