Binay Ranjan vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing

the office order dated 10.08.2000 (Annexure-1), by which the proposal of

the first time bound promotion of the petitioner has been annulled.

Further prayer has been made to pay the arrears of the salary on such

promotion after adjusting the amount already paid.

The instant writ application was filed by one Harihar Prasad

Sinha, who died during pendency of this writ application. On his death,

the wife of the deceased, Smt. Shakuntala Devi was substituted vide order

dated 15.06.2016.

The original writ petitioner was appointed in the work charge

establishment on 01.09.1969 as a Clerk and was taken in the regular

establishment vide letter dated 08.03.1989. The original writ petitioner was

granted the first time bound promotion w.e.f. 13.01.1987 after attaining 50

years. The petitioner was put under suspension and there was criminal

and departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. An order was

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla on 29.11.1999, whereby it was

decided that the benefit of 1st time bound promotion given w.e.f.

13.01.1987, will be given effect and all the retiral benefits will be calculated

on the basis of this promotion, revising the pay scale of the petitioner and

the will be sent to the District Account Office for verification and there

after the pension papers will be prepared and sent to A.G. Bihar for final

sanction of the pension. But all the payments will be made only after

obtaining an indemnity bond from Harihar Prasad Sinha. On 10.08.2000,

the impugned order was passed whereby the provisional time bound

promotion, granted to the petitioner, has not confirmed on the ground that

the petitioner has not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination.

This impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner.

The State appeared and filed their counter affidavit and has

stated that the petitioner had appeared in the departmental examination

in the year 1985 for the first time and passed the first and second primary

level examination. In para-8, it has been stated that after passing the

preliminary level examination, the petitioner has not passed the final level

examination. It has also been submitted that there is nothing on record to

show that the petitioner had appeared for the final examination for five

consecutive time before he attend the age of 50 years. It has also been

stated that there is nothing on record also to suggest that the petitioner

had tried to appear in the departmental examination continuously but was

unsuccessful. It is pleaded that it is not mandatory to exempt an employee

from the departmental examination after attaining the age of 50 years. It is

submitted that the exemption is governed by the circular dated 15.05.1992

contained in memo no. 3/R 1-101/91 Ka 4674 and the petitioner was not

exempted from passing the examination. It has been mentioned that since

the case of the petitioner did not fall for consideration, the impugned order

has correctly been passed.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have

gone through the entire records. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted

first time bound promotion provisionally, which was withdrawn by the

impugned order, as he had not passed the necessary departmental

examination. It is also admitted that the petitioner did not pass the final

Accounts Examination.

The Scheme of time bound promotion (as it then was) was

governed by the resolution of the Finance Department contained in memo

no. 3/PRC 3/81/F-10770 dated 30th December 1991. This was in terms of

the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Commission. Clause-11 of the said

resolution provides for time bound promotion. Clause- 11 (i) envisage the

grant of at least two time bound promotion to a government employee, first

by the end of 10 years of service and the second by the end of 25 years of

service. Clause-11 (ii) provides that if an employee, otherwise fit for

promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by 10 years of

service, he should be promoted to the junior selection grade at the end of

the tenth year. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions, it is quite clear that to

get first time bound promotion an employee should be otherwise fit for

promotion. A person, who passes the departmental examination, is only fit

to be considered for promotion. Thus, as per Clause-11 (ii) of the resolution

the employee have to pass the departmental examination.

In this case, admittedly, the employee did not pass the final

departmental examination. There is a resolution of 15.05.1992, which

exempts an employee from passing the departmental examination for the

purpose of grant of promotion. It provides that if a person attains the age

of 50 years, he may be exempted by an express order from appearing in the

departmental examination. It is also mentioned in the said resolution that

exemption will be effective from the date, the order has been issued. It

further provides that exemption would be given to only those persons, who, in spite of their efforts, cannot pass the examination or because of

some official reasons could not take part in the examination or no

examination was held 5 years prior to his attainment of 50 years.

The petitioner pleaded that since he was put under suspension

from June, 1986 to November, 1990, he could not appear in the said

examination. This ground of the petitioner cannot be accepted as because

the resolution provides that the petitioner has to be exempted by an

express order from appearing in the departmental examination. In the

instant case, there is no express order exempting the petitioner from

appearing in the departmental examination. Further, the claim of the

petitioner that he was under suspension and could not appear in the said

examination, cannot be a ground which is envisaged in the resolution for

granting exemption. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has not passed the

departmental examination and admittedly as per the resolution only those

employees, who are otherwise fit to be promoted and have not been

promoted in normal course, are entitled to get the benefit of time bound

promotion. Admittedly, passing departmental examination is a criteria for

promotion in normal course, which the petitioner lacked.

In this case since admittedly, the petitioner has not passed the

departmental examination, he was not found fit to be promoted in normal

course. Thus, he was also not entitled to be given time bound promotion.

Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order, which needs no

interference. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.