IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7083 of 2010
Binod Kumar Chaudhary, son of Shri Vimal
Chandra Chaudhary, resident of village
Manihari (Dharmashala Road, P.S. Manihari,
District Katihar, presently posted as
Treasury Guard in the Office of Executive
Engineer, Vigilance Division-3 (Headquarter),
Rural Work Department, Patna................Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Secretary - cum - Commissioner, Road
Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer - in - Chief - cum - Additional
Commissioner - cum - Special Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Ganga Pool Pariyojna
Upbhag, Road Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Ganga Pool
Anchal No.2, Road Construction Department,
Bhagalpur.
6. The Technical Advisor, Ganga Pool Anchal
No.2, Road Construction Department,
Bhagalpur.
7. The Executive Engineer, Vigilance Division-3
(Hqr.), Rural Works Department, Patna.
8. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Road
Division, Madhepura.......................................Respondents
-----------
2 27.01.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for
the State.
Though multiple prayer have been
made in the writ application for a
direction to the respondents in respect of
his promotion to the post of class III,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
at the time of arguments, has confined the
relief sought for from this Court by
2
petitioner in respect of time bound
promotion in the scale and benefits of
A.C.P. scheme only.
It is not disputed that having
worked under the work charged establishment
for certain length of time, petitioner was
regularized in the regular establishment
with effect from 16.02.1999.
Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on Memo No.3
/ P.A.R – 03-1/92/5000 dated 21st September,
1992, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-
16 with the rejoinder of the petitioner to
the counter affidavit. This memo of the
Government shows that the employees, who
were taken into regular establishment from
work charged establishment, are also held
entitled for time bound promotion in terms
of Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981.
It appears that the petitioner had
earlier moved this Court umpteen times with
a number of claims. Finally, on the basis
of the order passed by a Division Bench in
his Letters Patent Appeal No.17 of 2005
disposed of on 12.01.2005, he filed the
representation which has been rejected by
3
the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Bridge
Circle No.II, Road Construction Department
vide Annexure-1. In the impugned order it
has been held that petitioner is not
entitled for his promotion to the post of
Class III. However, it has been observed
that the petitioner can raise his claim for
grant of benefits of A.C.P. scheme with the
present Department under which he is
working.
Learned Additional Advocate General
No.V submits that in view of the memo of
the Government dated 21.09.1992, petitioner
can raise a claim for grant of time bound
promotion counting length of service
rendered under the work charged
establishment. Similarly, he submits that
for grant of benefit of A.C.P. scheme also,
he can raise a claim with the present
Department which shall be considered in
view of the Government decision and shall
be dealt with and disposed of accordingly.
A.A.G. No. V informs that the petitioner is
at present working under the Rural Works
Department and is posted under respondent
no.7.
4
In the circumstances, this writ
application is disposed of with a direction
to the petitioner to file a representation
before respondent no.7, Executive Engineer,
Vigilance Division-3 (Hqr.), Rural Works
Department, Patna for grant of time bound
promotion in the scale as well as for grant
of benefit of A.C.P. scheme. Respondent
no.7 is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner, if filed
for the above claims, taking into account
the Government decisions, as may be found
applicable in the case of the petitioner,
and dispose of the same in accordance with
law preferably within a period of three
months from the date of filing of the
representation.
It goes without saying that if the
petitioner is found entitled for grant of
benefits of the same, consequential orders
for release of monetary benefits shall also
be issued within that very time.
(J. N. Singh, J.)
BT