Allowed

Sabir Ali v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC31 Jul 2012CWJC/10998/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an Engineer Assistant seeking the second Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) denied due to a subsequent departmental proceeding. The High Court held that eligibility arose in 1999 before the suspension, upheld the petitioner's claim, and directed the department to grant the A.C.P. and consequential promotion as Superintending Engineer with effect from 09.08.1999.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to grant second A.C.P. to petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 along with all consequential benefits and promotion as Superintending Engineer.

Sabir Ali Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10998 of 2007

¶2

====================================================== Sabir Ali, S/o-Late Ashgar Ali, resident of Mohall-Nazni Chowk, Ganj No.2, P.s.-Bettiah, District-West Champaran (Bettiah). .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Pathak For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nikash Kumar Pandey, AC to GP-3

¶3

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

Petitioner, by this writ application, seeks the second Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) which was due to him in the year 1999 and has been denied to give.

¶5

02 31-07-2012

¶6

Counter affidavit is on record and having heard the parties, with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

¶7

In the counter affidavit, the stand of the State is that when the case of the petitioner was being considered for grant of A.C.P. in the year 2007, petitioner was facing a departmental proceeding and, as such, he was not entitled to the same. He was not granted the same accordingly.

¶8

Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that having been employed as an Engineer Assistant on 09.01.1974 and having got only one promotion as Executive

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.10998 of 2007 (02) dt.31-07-2012

¶10

- 2 -

¶11

Engineer in the year 1997, petitioner was entitled to the second A.C.P. as per the A.C.P. scheme, 2003. The scheme provides that subject to a person getting promotion earlier a person would get a promotion in mandatory terms after completing 12 years of service. Upon further completion of 12 years he would get the second A.C.P. Thus, the second A.C.P. is 24 years from the date of employment with one promotion in between. He rightly submits that if this principle is kept in mind then the petitioner having got a single promotion as Executive Engineer was entitled to second A.C.P. on completion of 24 years of service. That would come to 1998 from 1974 but this scheme is effective from 09.08.1999 and thus he ought to have been granted second A.C.P. with effect from 09.08.1999. This, in my view, is correct. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the second A.C.P. and, consequently, to be promoted as Superintending Engineer with effect from 09.08.1999.

¶12

The contention of the State is that in 2001 a departmental proceeding was initiated and petitioner was suspended which proceedings ended in the year 2007 with order of punishment, petitioner’s case for A.C.P. could not be considered. It is fallacious because the promotion was due in 1999 when petitioner was not suffering from any disability. It is well settled that disability attaching on a subsequent date cannot prejudice the earlier period. Thus, non-consideration or non-grant of A.C.P. to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 cannot be justified. It matters little whether the departmental promotion committee subsequently recommended for promotion or not because the promotion in fact was due more

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.10998 of 2007 (02) dt.31-07-2012

¶14

¶15

than 10 years earlier and had been wrongly denied.

¶16

I that view of the matter, I have no option but to allow this writ application and direct the respondents to grant second A.C.P. to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 with all consequential benefits. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to ensure full and proper compliance of order of this Court in all aspects within a period of four months from the date of production

¶17

of a copy of this order before him.

¶18

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)

¶19

Trivedi/-

Sabir Ali v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir Ali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binay Kumar and Ors. Vs the Bihar Legislative Assembly

Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ambika Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Choudhary Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gauri Shankar Pandey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Diwakar Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.