IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 748 of 2009
...
1. Puran Chandra Mishra
2. Mrityunjai Narayan Sinha
3. Ram Lakhan Prasad ... ...
Petitioners
V e r s u s
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Opposite Parties
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R.PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Sumir Prasad &
Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocates
For the State : J.C. to S.C.I.
For the OP Nos. 2 to 5: Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
...
03/15.09.2010
In compliance with the directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 27.08.2010, the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 have appeared in Court
in person today and have filed a supplementary show cause reply.
It is contended in the supplementary show cause reply that the
compliance of the directions as contained in the impugned order of this
Court passed in the writ application, has been duly made in as much as,
the cases of the individual petitioners for their promotion was duly
considered and in view of the fact that though the names of the petitioners
do transpire in the panel list of 26.05.1988 from 31.05.1988, but the
persons above them in seniority in the panel could be absorbed against the
then existing vacancies and after filling up of all the vacancies, there was
no vacancy left for accommodating the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties informs that as per the
directions contained in the impugned order, the respondent authorities had
reconsidered the petitioners’ claim and thereafter, passed a reasoned order.
This, according to the learned counsel, is in full compliance with the
directions contained in the impugned order of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would argue
that the purported compliance is in fact no compliance at all. Rather, the
respondents have intentionally manipulated matters in such a manner as to
deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioners. This, despite the fact that
a clear direction was given to the respondents to consider the cases of the
petitioners for their promotion from the same panel. Learned counsel adds
that at the time when the issues involved in the writ application were
agitated and decided by this Court, the respondents did not raise any such
issue regarding seniority in the panel list. In fact while approving the panel
list, this Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the
petitioners for their promotion, if their names do transpire in the panel list.
The petitioners were entitled therefore for their promotion against the
vacancies which were existing at that time irrespective of the fact that their
names transpire above or below the persons who have already been
promoted against the existing vacancies. Learned counsel submits further
that though the respondents have granted promotions to the petitioners,
but such promotions have been granted to them from a subsequent date of
1992 albeit from the same panel, although the petitioners were entitled for
their promotion from the date when others were granted similar
promotions.
From the rival submissions it appears that the grievance of the
petitioners is in respect of the date of promotion given to them. Whereas
the petitioners contend that the date of their promotion should be
reckoned from the same date when others were granted similar
promotions, the contention of the respondents as it further appears from
the submissions of the counsel for the respondents is that the petitioners
may not be entitled for promotion from the date when others were given
promotions since at that time no vacancies existed for the petitioners.
Be that as it may, I find from the show cause reply that directions as
contained in the impugned order of this Court have been complied with by
the respondents and therefore there is no reason to retain this contempt
application on Board any further. Accordingly, this contempt application is
dropped. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh
representation before the concerned authorities of the respondents /
Opposite Parties for a reconsideration as to whether the date of promotion
can be shifted notionally back to the dates when vacancies arose
subsequently, for the purpose of future service benefit of the petitioners.
The personal appearance of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 are
hereby dispensed with.
(D.G.R.Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/