Md. Shabbir Ahmad vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Neelam Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondents-State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Sub Divisional Officer/Junior Selection Grade (Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-) to the post of Additional Collector and equivalent (Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-) w.e.f. due date or the date when the juniors have been granted promotion i.e. 11.01.2016 along with all consequential benefits like seniority and monetary. Further prayer in this writ petition is for consideration of case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Additional Collector and equivalent (Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-) to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent (Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-) w.e.f. the due date or the date on which the juniors have been granted promotion i.e. 03.02.2020 along with all consequential benefits like seniority and monetary.

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the details of the service of the petitioner is disclosed in Para 6 of the writ petition which reads as follows:-

Sl. Nos. Date Subject Matter

1 18.01.1996 Appointment on the post of Deputy Collector

2 23.01.1996 The petitioner gave joining at Dhanbad.

3 23.12.2009 Promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officer(Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-)

4 04.01.2016 Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting held for promotion from the post of Sub

Divisional Officer to Additional Collector, but his case was not considered due to non-availability of ACR with the committee.

11.01.2016 Juniors granted promotion to the post of Additional Collector, for example Smt. Sangita Lal, at serial no.11 onwards.

06.03.2016 The petitioner preferred representation.

03.02.2020 Juniors to the petitioner granted promotion to the rank of Joint Secretary, for example Manoj Kumar at serial no.14 and there on.

Mr. Sauratbh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that juniors to the petitioners have been promoted to the said post but the case of the petitioner has not been considered. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-1 wherein name of petitioner finds figured at serial no.22 and reasons of non- consideration of case of the petitioner is said to have been non- availability of ACR. He submits that identical matters have been disposed of by this Court with direction to consider the case of the petitioners of those cases for promotion which has been considered by the Government and they have been granted promotion. He submits that the matter may be disposed of with such direction which requires to be considered at the first instance by respondent no.2.

Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for respondents-State submits that the petitioner has not challenged the order of juniors, who have been promoted. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He further submits that Annexure-1 is not challenged, in that view of the matter, the case may be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the Annexure-1 wherein the reasons of non-consideration of the case is said to have been non-availability of ACR and for that fault, the petitioner is not responsible. It was the duty of the respondents- State to produce the ACR as it is in the custody of State. Thus, the petitioner cannot be set at guilt for non-availability of ACR. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents-State is not tenable. So far contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to order of juniors are not challenged, is also not tenable in view of the fact that the petitioner is not claiming parity with them, the petitioner merely prays for consideration of his case. The petitioner is only praying for consideration of his promotion in view of Article 16 of Constitution of India. Thus, both objections of learned counsel for the respondents are not acceptable to the Court.

The Court directs the petitioner to approach the respondent no.2 by way of filing fresh representation along with all the credentials on which the petitioner is relying within three weeks from today. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.2 shall take a decision within a period of eight weeks in accordance with rules, guidelines and precedents.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.