Disposed

Gopal Chandra Pd. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC27 Mar 2014CWJC/7658/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of three writ petitions filed by tax collectors seeking promotion to Revenue Officer posts. Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to consider promotion cases based on seniority and vacancies while keeping in mind the Kapildo Prasad guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Municipal Commissioner to consider promotion cases of petitioners on promotional posts as per seniority and vacancies and in accordance with Kapildo Prasad guidelines.

Gopal Chandra Pd. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7658 of 2007

¶2

====================================================== Gopal Chandra Pd., Son of Late Suresh Chandra Pd., resident of Mohalla New Jakkanpur, Dr. N. C. Ghose Lane Police Station, District Patna at present working as Tax Collector, Nutan Rajdhani Anchal, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶6

Patna Municipal corporation Through its Municipal Commissioner

¶7

Municipal Commissioner/Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation. .... .... Respondent/s

¶8

======================================================

¶9

with

¶10

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7627 of 2007

¶11

======================================================

¶12

Ram Ayodhya Singh Son of Late Sahebzada Singh, Resident of VillageVishun Pura, Police Station Bihta District, Patna, at present working as Tax Collector, Nutan Rajdhani Anchal, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

¶13

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶16

Patna Municipal corporation Through its Municipal Commissioner

¶17

Municipal Commissioner/Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation.

¶18

.... .... Respondent/s

¶19

======================================================

¶20

with

¶21

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7711 of 2007

¶22

====================================================== Uma Shanker Singh Son of late Vyas Singh, resident of Mohalla Alwal Pur, Police Station Khajekala, District Patna, at present working as Tax Collector, Nutan Rajdhani Anchal, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

¶23

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶24

Versus

¶25

1.The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶26

Patna Municipal corporation Through its Municipal Commissioner

¶27

Municipal Commissioner/Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation.

¶28

.... .... Respondent/s

¶29

====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.7658 of 2007) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Pd.Sinha

¶30

Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman

¶31

For the State : Mr. P.K.Verma,AAG-V For the PMC : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey

¶32

(In CWJC No.7627 of 2007)

¶33

¶34

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Pd.Sinha

¶35

Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman

¶36

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, SC-2 For the PMC : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey

¶37

(In CWJC No.7711 of 2007) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Narendra Prasad Yadav

¶38

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to GA-10 For the PMC : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey

¶39

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

A similar relief has been sought for in all

¶42

9 27-03-2014

¶43

these three writ applications against same set of respondents, all these applications are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the parties.

¶44

Common grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Tax Collectors way back in the year 1991-1978 and they are holding substantive post of Tax Collector but they have not been given promotion to higher post. It is the case of the petitioners that under the orders of the respondents they have been made to discharge the duties of the higher post of Revenue Officer and claim that they should be promoted to the post of Revenue Officers as the posts are vacant. This is to be noted that the petitioner of CWJC No. 7627 of 2007 retired on

¶45

¶46

attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.7.2012 during the pendency of this application. It has been submitted on his behalf that whenever the cases of other similarly situated persons are taken up for promotion, his case should also be considered along with them, for grant of notional promotion and consequential benefits.

¶47

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Patna Municipal Corporation, stating, inter alia, that a Tax Collector cannot be promoted directly to the post of Revenue Officers. Giving the line of promotion, it has been stated that a Tax Collector can be promoted to the post of Tax Inspector and thereafter, a Tax Inspector can be considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Officers. It has also been asserted that steps for grant of promotion to the post of Revenue Officers have already been taken and roster clearance is awaited from the Commissioner, Patna Division Patna.

¶48

Be that as it may, though the petitioners have claimed promotion to the post of Revenue

¶49

¶50

Officers, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I propose to dispose of the writ applications with a direction to the respondent No.3Municipal Commissioner/Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation to consider the cases of promotion of these petitioners on promotional posts as per their seniority and vacancies in accordance with the rules applicable to them. While considering such promotions the authorities will keep in mind the direction of this Court in case of Kapildo Prasad and ors vs. Patna Municipal Corporation reported in 1997(1) PLJR 456.

¶51

I have taken note of the fact that it is not the case of the petitioners that any persons junior to them have been granted promotion, ignoring the cases of these petitioners. However, it has to be kept in mind that if a promotion is due of an employee, employer has a duty to consider it and grant promotion, if he fulfills the eligibility and other criteria, in accordance with rule with utmost expeditious.

¶52

These writ applications are accordingly,

disposed of.

ArunKumar/-

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

Gopal Chandra Pd. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Chandra Pd. 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

Krishna Bihari Sinha k.b. Sinha Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Ravi Kumar @ Chhotan Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Lalo Mian @ Md. Lalo Vs The State Of Bihar

Sri Utpal Sen Das Vs the Union of India andORS

Uma Shanker Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Binod Singh Saumitra Vs the Chairman and M.D.,Allahabad