IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.2541 of 2009
JAGDISH PRASAD-1 .
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
-----------
4. 3.11.2010 Show cause has been filed on behalf of the
Opposite Parties.
The order on the writ petition was to
consider him for promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer from the date that his
juniors have been promoted with following direction:-
(a) to promote him (b) to pay the arrears of
Superintending Engineer from that date after
deducting from payment made as Executive Engineer
(c) re-fix the pension on the basis of the last pay
drawn as a Superintending Engineer and (d) arrears of
retrial benefits after re-fixation was to be paid within
four months. The arrears of salary shall carry interest
@ of 4 per cent.
The order of the writ Court was dated
18.3.2009. The petitioner submitted his
representation along with a copy of the order on
15.4.2009. The order was therefore to be complied
with by 15.8.2009
The show cause contains a communication
dated 19.10.2010 that the departmental promotion
committee had recommended grant of promotion as
2
Superintending Engineer with retrospective effect from
5.9.2001 being the date from his juniors have been
promoted. Promotion has been granted to the
petitioner from that date in the pay scale of Rs.
14300-18300.
Annexure-B to the show cause is a
communication dated 20.10.2010 from the Deputy
Secretary, Road Construction Department to the
Accountant General that the pay of the petitioner was
required to be fixed, arrears paid with 4% interest and
also retiral benefits to be re-fixed and paid.
No sanction order in respect of the same has
been placed on record by the Opposite Parties. There
is also an error perhaps typographical in the order
dated 20.10.2010 that he had been granted promotion
from 5.9.2010 in place of 5.9.2001.
The Court is satisfied that the respondents
have complied only one part of the order and the rest
remains un-complied.
On the previous occasion there was already
direction if the order was not complied with, opposite
party no. 2 was directed to remain present in person
as to why charges be not framed against him. In
terms thereof if he failed to file a show cause showing
compliance, the opposite party no. 2 was required to
3
remain present in person today. His absence is a
serious matter. However, the Court considers it
proper to grant him one more opportunity.
Let the Opposite Party No. 2 appear in
person to show cause why charges be not framed
against him.
List on the 24th of November, 2010 at the
same position.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)