This is an oral order disposing of a contempt application where a doctor alleged the State failed to grant promotion retrospective effect. The court held the State's action was not wilful disobedience, leaving the petitioner other remedies. Matter disposed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1620 of 2009
====================================================== Dr. Rajendra Prasad, son of Uma Shanker Prasad, resident of 403, Santosha Complex, Bandarbagicha, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna
.... .... Intervener/Petitioner
Versus
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate
For the O.P. : Mr.Ajit Kumar, S.C. 28
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)
40 17-03-2016 The petitioner herein is respondent No.16 in LPA No. 368 of 2009, which was disposed of on 13th July, 2011 when the following order was passed :-
“In view of above, we are of the opinion that the order of learned Single Judge with reference to effecting the promotion with retrospective effect has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. However, having heard all the parties, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice it would suffice if a direction is issued to the respondentState to consider the cases of the doctors who are in service on 20.06.1996 in their respective posts by giving effect to their promotion as per
Patna High Court MJC No.1620 of 2009 (40) dt.17-03-2016
2
the eligibility criteria and as per the guidelines contained in the policy dated 20.06.1996 prospectively.
We also make it clear that as the rules came into force on 14.05.1997 the promotion of these persons and also other doctors who have not come to this Court, should be considered as per the existing rules.”
It may be mentioned that the Circular dated 20th June, 1996 contemplates re-designation to the post of Assistant Professor of those Anesthetist who have three years teaching experience and are postgraduates.
In terms of the order of this Court a gradation list was circulated on 9th May, 2014, Annexure-A appended to the show cause dated 22nd July, 2014. It has been stated in the show cause that after publication of the final gradation list the matter of promotion to the eligible persons, including the petitioner, was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for its consideration. Recently the recommendation of the DPC has been obtained and cleared by the Finance Department and now it has been sent to the Cabinet for approval.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though in the gradation list the petitioner is reflected as Serial No. 39 but in the Office Order dated 22nd July, 2014 the respondents are not treating
Patna High Court MJC No.1620 of 2009 (40) dt.17-03-2016
3
the petitioner as Assistant Professor from 20th June, 1996 as the petitioner has been granted promotion as Assistant Professor from 1st July, 2009, which clearly contradicts the direction of the Division Bench as also the averments made in the show cause circulating the gradation list.
We have heard learned counsels for the parties and find that the direction of this Court has been complied with by the respondents as per their interpretation of the order. If action of the respondents is not in accordance with law, it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy but it cannot be said that there is wilful disobedience of any of the directions of this Court. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the contempt application.
The contempt application stands disposed of.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
spal/-
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State of Bihar committed contempt of court by not granting the petitioner promotion retroactively to 20.06.1996 as directed in a previous order.
Whether the respondents' compliance with the earlier direction was wilful disobedience.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad
The State of Bihar
Bhanu Pratap Sharma
Vivek Kumar Singh
Hemant Gupta
Ramesh Kumar Datta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
