Nawal Kishor Prasad vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

P.P. Bhatt, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the papers.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State waives service of notice on behalf of the State.

The petitioner by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of a direction to fix pension by giving consequential benefits of second time bound promotion with effect from 01.06.1990 as the petitioner had completed 25 years of his service on that date and has already been retired from service from 31stst January, 2001.

It is the case of the petitioner that he joined his services as daily wage employee in the year 1962 as ''Janjeerwahak'' and thereafter, he was posted on the post of ''Amin'' on 01.06.1965. In support thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon Annexure-E as well as Annexure-G of the counter affidavit filed by the State to show that even as per the State Government records, the petitioner has continuously worked since the date of his appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon Annexure-6 of the reply to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that as per the Government Circular No. 1503, dated 27.03.1987, the services rendered by an employee in the capacity of work charge employee shall also be counted/computed for the purpose of giving benefit of the time bound promotion.

As against that, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the State and also by referring to Annexure-G to the said counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of ''Amin'' on 01.06.1965 and thereafter, his services was discontinued on 28.02.1969 and thereafter, he was appointed on the post of ''Amin'' on 01.03.1969 and discharged his duties on the post of ''Amin'' till the retirement and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of second time bound promotion as prayed for with effect from 1990 because the continuous service of 25 years is required to be computed from the date 01.03.1969, i.e. from the date of fresh appointment. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State, the second time bound promotion to the petitioner is due with effect from 01.03.1994.

Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on the post of ''Amin'' initially as work charge employee on 14.09.1962 and i.e., why his case was recommended vide Annexure-E for grant of second time bound promotion with effect from 14.09.1987. It appears that the petitioner has rendered services as work charge employee from 1962 to 01stst March, 1969. Annexure-G to the counter affidavit indicates that he was appointed on the post of ''Amin'' on 01.06.1965 and has worked up to 28.02.1969 and thereafter, fresh appointment with effect from 01stst March, 1969 was issued. On perusal of Annexure-6 of the reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that there is a Government Circular No. 1503, dated 27.03.1987 and sub clause 3 (b) of the said Circular provides that the services rendered by an employee in the capacity of work charge employee shall be calculated for the purpose of grant of second time bound promotion, provided that the seniority of a regular employee is not adversely affected. The petitioner''s case is based on the Circular vide Annexure-6, that he should be given the benefit of continuous service for the grant of second time bound promotion with effect from 14.09.1987 by computing 25 years of services from his initial date of appointment as the work charge employee in the year 1962. As mentioned hereinabove, from Annexure-G of the counter affidavit filed by the State, the petitioner''s appointment on the post of ''Amin'' was made on 01.06.1965 and thereafter, it was put to an end on 28.02.1969 and thereafter, fresh appointment was given with effect from 01.03.1969. Therefore, the Director, Soil Conservation, Government of Jharkhand is required to take a decision in consonance with the Circular No. 1503, dated 27.03.1987, referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide Annexure-6 of the reply to the counter affidavit and pass appropriate order within the stipulated time, so that the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed.

Accordingly, the Director, Soil Conservation, Government of Jharkhand shall consider and take a decision about the second time bound promotion, to be given to the petitioner in the light of the above-referred Circular (Annexure-6 of the reply to the counter affidavit) within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The final decision that may be taken by the Respondents, be communicated to the petitioner and if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the consequential benefits thereof, be released accordingly. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.