Mahendra Prasad Sah vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 06.07.2007 (Annexure-5) issued

under the signature of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka pertaining to rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of second time bound

promotion and further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to grant two promotions to the petitioner in pursuance to the scheme of

Assured Career Progression on completion of 12 and 24 years of service with all consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of the difference of the

said revised pay scale and fix the final pension on the revised pay scale along with interest @ 18% per annum.

The averments, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1971 on the post of Munsarin in the Survey &

Settlement Department. In the year 1981 the petitioner was granted 1st time bound promotion on completion of 10 years of service. It has been

submitted in the writ application that the petitioner became entitled for grant of second time bound promotion on completion of 25 years of service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on completion of 24 years of service, the petitioner was entitled to get second time bound promotion

and the respondents have illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion in passing the impugned order dated

06.07.2007 vide Annexure-5 to the writ application which is not legally tenable.

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5, wherein it has been

submitted that second time bound promotion of the petitioner became due on 29.10.1996 whereas revised central pay scale came into existence with

effect from 01.01.1996 in which there is no provision of time bound promotion. Secondly, the benefits of ACP is payable with effect from 15.11.2000,

whereas the petitioner retired on 28.02.1999. In that view of the matter, the benefits are not admissible to the petitioner. So far as 1st time bound

promotion is concerned it has been granted to the petitioner according to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 30.12.1981. Moreover, the

petitioner after retirement on 28.02.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation, has been paid all the retiral dues on the pay drawn by him. It has

further been submitted that the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (hereinafter in short referred to as ACP) is admissible vide Finance

Department, Ranchi, vide Resolution dated 04.08.2002. It is pertinent to mention that in paragraph 4(iii) it has been stated that the scheme is applicable

to those employees who qualify for the benefits of this scheme or with effect from 09.08.1999, whichever is later and the payment of this scheme is

effective from 15.11.2000 but the petitioner has already retired on 28.02.1999. Therefore, the benefit of the Assured Career Progression scheme is

not admissible to the petitioner.Â

Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the

prayer of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been granted 1st time bound promotion vide order dated 27.11.1990 with effect from

29.10.1981 and so far as second time bound promotion is concerned, since the petitioner retired in the year 1999 hence he was not eligible for the

same.

In that view of the matter, there is no merit to tinker with the impugned order vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. Moreover, the time bound

promotion scheme which has been replaced by ACP which came into effect in the year 2002 which was made effective from August 1999 and prior

to the said date the petitioner retired from the service, so the petitioner is not entitled to either second time bound promotion or ACP.

Viewed thus, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 does not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is

dismissed.