Held the petitioner may file a representation for consideration of his promotion grievance. The court directed disposal within three months but expressed no opinion on merits.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to move before an appropriate authority for consideration of his grievance with a direction for disposal within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.110 of 1998 (12) dt.23-10-2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.110 of 1998
======================================================
Ram Chandra Singh
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag1)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
ORAL ORDER
12 23-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 1.6.1961. Thereafter
he was given promotion on officiating basis as Sub Inspector of Police
w.e.f. 23.6.1971. The petitioner submits that one Yamuna Prasad Yadav
and Bhuneshwar Singh were also given promotion on officiating basis as
Sub Inspector of Police w.e.f. 1.5.1982 and 1.3.1983 respectively and were
promoted to the post of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 3.11.1982. The grievance
of the petitioner is that though the persons who were officiated as Sub
Inspector of Police much later to him has been promoted as Inspector of
Police and his case has not been considered for promotion to the post of
Inspector of Police. The petitioner superannuated as Sub Inspector of
Police in the year 1997.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and
3 wherein in paragraph 4 it has been stated that seniority in the rank of Sub
Inspector of Police shall be reckoned from the date of officiating promotion
on regular basis given by a competent Board and not otherwise promoted
on adhoc basis. A police order no.260/97 with respect to it has already been
Patna High Court CWJC No.110 of 1998 (12) dt.23-10-2013
2
circulated to all concerned. It has been further stated that in light of provisions laid down in Rule 69 of the Police Manual, the competent authority for granting promotion on regular basis is Police Headquarter.
Learned State counsel submits that in view of subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the seniority is to be reckoned from the date of regular promotion and not on adhoc promotion.
The petitioner submits that some of the similarly situated persons moved this Court for promotion to the post of Inspector and this Court has disposed of the matter with liberty to make a representation before an appropriate authority.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I grant similar liberty to the petitioner to move before an appropriate authority for consideration of his grievance. In case such a representation is filed, the same would be disposed of within three months from the date of its filing. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
KHAN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police despite a gap between his adhoc promotion and superannuation.
Ram Chandra Singh
The State Of Bihar
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
