IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S). No. 1454 of 2004
...
Krishna Chandra Mishra ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Engineer in Chief cum Additional Commissioner
cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department
5. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction
Department, Mechanical Circle, Ranchi
6. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction
Department, Road Circle, Ranchi
7. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction
Department, Road Division, Ranchi ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : - G.P.-I.
...
6/ 14.12.2009
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the petitioner, who has now retired from service, is that
although for the past more than 34 years prior to the date of his retirement, he was
working as a Senior Mechanic Grade-I in the Civil Wing of the department
namely in the Road Constriction Department, he was not given promotion to the
post of Foreman whereas other persons similarly working as Junior Mechanics
Grade-I in the same department, were shifted to the Mechanical Wing and were
granted promotion. Reference in this context has been given by the petitioner to
the case of one Ashutosh Mitra who was employed as a Junior Mechanic in the
Civil Wing of the Road Construction Department and later, even without
transferring him to the Mechanical Wing, he was given promotion to the post of
Senior Mechanic Grade-I by the Engineer-in-Chief namely the Respondent No. 3.
3. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court with his aforesaid
grievance vide C.W.J.C. No. 3931 of 2000 (R) . While disposing of the writ
application, a Bench of this Court had observed, from the statements contained in
the counter affidavit of the respondents that the Civil Wing of Road Constriction
Department and Mechanical Wing of Road Construction Department are the same
department. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department and
Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department had recommended the
case of the petitioner to the Engineer-in-Chief of the Road Construction
Department for his promotion to the post of foreman but in spite of that the
promotion has not been given to the petitioner. On the aforesaid observation, this
Court while disposing of the writ application, had directed the Engineer-in-Chief,
Road Construction Department, Jharkhand to consider the grievance of the
petitioner for his promotion to the post of Foreman and take a decision in
accordance with law.
4. It appears that as per the directions contained in the order passed by this
Court in the earlier writ application, the petitioner submitted his representation
before the concerned authorities afresh but again, his prayer for promotion was
rejected repeating the ground that the Mechanical Wing and the Civil Wing under
the department are separate wings, each having its own gradation list of officers
and the petitioner being in the Civil Wing, cannot claim promotion to the post of
Foreman under the Mechanical wing.
5. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that the
Rules do not permit the promotion of the petitioner, who is in the Civil Wing of
the Road Construction Department, to the post of Foreman in the Mechanical
Wing.
6. The controversy raised by the petitioner has to be seen from two specific
angles. The first being that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Senior
Mechanic Grade-I in the P.W. Department. The P.W. Department was
subsequently bifurcated into Road Construction Department and Building
Construction Department. The petitioner, upon bifurcation of the P.W.
Department, was posted in the Road Construction Department in the Civil Wing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the
Notification dated 25.03.1982 (annexure-4), a direction was given to the
authorities concerned to promptly transfer all such employees who were
originally employed in the Mechanical Wing and later made to work in the Civil
Wing and to assess their seniority according to gradation list in their department.
It is argued by the learned counsel that the aforesaid directives contained in the
Circular dated 25.03.1982 ought to have been promptly complied with by the
respondents concerned but in spite of repeated demands and recommendations
made by the senior authorities of the petitioner, the petitioner was made to
continue in the Civil Wing of the Department and thereby, he was deprived of his
promotion to the post of Foreman.
The other angle from which the controversy needs to be viewed is on the
basis of the petitioner’s assertion that a similar relief, as claimed by the petitioner,
was given to one of his junior colleagues namely Ashutosh Mitra and some
others. This statement reflected in paragraph 22 of the petitioner’s writ
application, does not appear to have been specifically answered in the counter
affidavit though at paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit, the issue as raised by the
petitioner, has been brushed aside by merely suggesting that the statements as
contained in paragraph 22 of the writ application is irrelevant in view of the fact
that the petitioner is working in the Civil Wing.
7. If others who were similarly situated as the petitioner and working in the
Civil Wing of the Department, could be granted promotion in the Mechanical
Wing to the post of Foreman, there is no reason why the petitioner should be
discriminated and denied such benefits. No reason appears to have been offered
by the respondents as to why the specific directions contained in the Government
Circular (Annexure-4) of the year 1982, was not complied with in the petitioner’s
case and he was not promptly shifted from the Civil Wing to the Mechanical
Wing although his initial appointment was as a Senior Mechanic Grade-I.
10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I fin merit in this writ
application. Accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned order dated
03.06.2002 (Annexure-14) is hereby set aside. The concerned authorities of the
respondents are directed to re-consider the petitioner’s case for the grant of
promotion to him in the post of Foreman in the same manner in which such
promotions have been granted to others named by the petitioner in paragraph Nos.
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 22 of his writ application and also in the light of the fact
that the respondents had failed to comply with the directions issued by the
Government Circular of 1982, to shift the employees who were posted in the Civil
Wing to the Mechanical Wing and treat their seniority accordingly. The
respondents shall, on being satisfied that the petitioner deserves the same
treatment as given to his other colleagues in the matter of grant of promotion to
the post of Foreman, fix the date of his promotion and since the petitioner has
now retired, shall extend the corresponding monetary benefits to the petitioner, if
such promotion is granted to him, from the date of such promotion till the date of
his retirement. This exercise must be completed within three months from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent
State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/