Ram Prasad Jha vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, j

This petitioner preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.10.2007, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of first and second

Assured Career progression has been rejected. The petitioner was initially appointed as work charge Lab Khalasi in the year 1965. He joined the said

post on 17.8.1965. Subsequently, in the year 1966 he was ap-pointed as Lab Assistant and on such appointment, he joined on the said post on

01.01.1966. The petitioner served the department at several places and lastly he superannuated from service on 31.1.2003 after com-pletion of 58

years of age.

The petitioner earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 894 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.5.2007 giving liberty to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Secretary, Road Con-struction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no.2)

giving details of the claims therein along with a copy of this order. It was further directed that if such representation is filed, the said authority shall

consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such

representation and if the petitioner is found entitled to the monetary bene-fit(s) claimed by him, the same must be paid to him along with the statutory

interest within a period of six weeks thereafter. Further direction was that if the amount(s), found payable to the petitioner, is/are not paid within the

said period, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 10% per an-num till final payment, in addition to the statutory interest payable on de-layed

payment of such dues and in that case, the State Government shall be at liberty to realize the amount of penal interest from the erring offi-cial(s).

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed fresh representation and his representation was decided vide order dated 30.10.2007 and his claim has

been rejected taking into account the fact that the petitioner’s services was not continuous for certain period and he has not passed the Hindi

Noting and Drafting Examination, which is the condition precedent for allowing the Assured Career Progression. On this ground, his claim has been

rejected by the authorities concerned vide Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Counsel moved before this Court and challenged order dated 30.10.2007

contained in Annexure 10 to the memo of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the service record is not provided to the concerned authority, it is not the concern of the peti-

tioner. So far passing of the Hindi examination is concerned, the Rule is of the year 1999, whereas the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1965.

On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order is not tena-ble in the eye of law.

Counsel appearing for the State pointed out that as per petitioner’s Service Book, there is break in the service of petitioner from 01.11.1971 to

11.1976, 01.03.1982 to 31.08.1983 and 01.11.1990 to 30.10.1991 and petitioner has not passed Hindi Noting Drafting Examination. Hence the

claim for granting ACP by the petitioner has been rejected due to break in service and non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination.

I have perused the impugned order contained in Annexure 10 to the memo of the writ petition. The petitioner has not satisfied this court that how he

will be allowed Assured Career Progression as he has not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination, which is condition precedent in the

scheme.

No case of interference is made out. The writ petition is, accord-ingly, dismissed.