Dr. Chandra Mohan Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“For directing the respondent no.2 to forthwith confirm at present the promotion of the petitioner in the post of Associate Professor on and from the date of joining on 27.02.1997 (as promoted vide Notification No.47 (17) dated 19.02.1997) and to make payment in the admitted scale of Associate professor on and from 27.02.1997 along with other consequential benefits and also at present confirm promotion of the petitioner in the post of Professor on and from date of his joining in the post of Professor on 04.04.2002 (vide notification no.36(2) dated 03.04.2002) and to make payment in the admitted scale of Professor on and from the said date 04.04.2002 along with other consequential benefits as it has been done in the case of other Teaching Cadre Doctors Medical Colleges within the State of Jharkhand vide Notification No.103 dated 08.04.2004 wherein they have been confirmed in the post of Associate Professor and Professor from retrospective effect and have also been given respective Pay scale from retrospective effect but in the case of the petitioner it has been discriminated.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on working arrangement, but the pay was given of that of Assistant Professor. The order of promotion is contained in Annexure – 3 to the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner was thereafter promoted on the post of professor vide order as contained in Annexure – 5 and the same was also on the same pay scale of Assistant Professor. He submits that the petitioner had raised a grievance vide Annexure – 8 as back as on 23.06.2003 before the Commissioner – cum – Secretary, Department of Health Education (respondent no.2) stating that in spite of two promotions, the petitioner was being paid the salary of the Assistant Professor only and it was also indicated in the said representation that the original petitioner was to retire on 30.09.2003. The learned counsel submits that no order on the said representation was passed and accordingly, the petitioner filed the writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has referred to the counter-affidavit to submit that there were certain interim orders passed by this Court on 05.03.2004 in C.W.J.C No.420 of 2001 directing that there shall be no admission in Medical Colleges till teacher - student ratio prescribed by Medical Council of India is met. Consequently, certain decision was taken to relax the criteria for promotion to the post of Professor. She submits that the petitioner was promoted as regular Professor of Surgery with effect from 01.06.2003 vide Notification No.310 dated 14.10.2006 after thorough consideration of his claim by the anomaly committee duly constituted by the competent authority vide letter dated 8.4.2004. It has also been stated in a counter-affidavit that the persons promoted earlier to this date were senior persons and after considering roster and vacancy of the post of professor, it was not possible to promote the petitioner from retrospective date with pay scale and consequential benefits. She also submits that it has been mentioned in para 12 of the counter affidavit that only two posts of Associate Professor were sanctioned and one of Associate Professor of Surgery was surrendered and converted to the post of Associate Professor of Dentistry to meet the requirement of Medical Council of India. She has also referred to para 14 of the counter affidavit to submit that the regulations of Medical Council of India are mandatory, but the rules framed for appointment by promotion in teaching cadre 1997 is binding on the parties. The learned counsel submits that as the promotions which were given to the petitioner were by way of working arrangement and subsequently the original petitioner was granted retrospective promotion w.e.f 1.6.2003 as per the report of the anomaly committee, therefore, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted in this writ petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per para 22 of the writ petition, it has been stated that vide notification dated 8.4.2004, an Anomaly Committee was constituted, of which the respondent no.2 was the Chairman and the petitioner filed his representation dated 5.6.2004 and requested for inclusion of his name, but nothing was done. It has been stated in para 25 that the original petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2003. However, from perusal of the counter-affidavit, it appears that a specific stand has been taken by the respondents that the petitioner’s claim was thoroughly considered by the Anomaly Committee and he was promoted to the post of Professor w.e.f. 1.06.2003 vide Notification No.310 dated 14.10.2006 and thus the petitioner was granted promotion with retrospective effect. The said order of the Anomaly Committee has not been brought on record. The petitioner has not even filed any rejoinder to the counter-affidavit dated 08.08.2013 denying the fact that the petitioner has been granted retrospective promotion w.e.f 1.6.2003 vide Notification dated 14.10.2006.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition as the decision of the Anomaly Committee is neither on record nor under challenge pursuant to which the original petitioner has been granted retrospective promotion w.e.f 1.6.2003 vide Notification dated 14.10.2006. However, in case the petitioner has any grievance regarding the decision of the Anomaly Committee or has any surviving grievance on any monetary benefit arising out of the order of retrospective promotion of the petitioner vide Notification dated 14.10.2006, the same may be raised before competent authority/ forum in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.