IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.15833 of 2005
SMT.ARCHANA CHOUDHARY @ KUMARI ARCHANA
CHOUDHARY WIFE OF LATE SHISHIR KUMAR GFUPTA
RESIDENT OF DALMIA NAGAR, P.S. DEHRI ON SONE,
DISTRICT ROHTAS.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-
CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
EMPLOYEMENT AND TRAINING, NEW
SECRETARIAT, PATNA.
2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONMER, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH
COMMISSIONER-CUM-KSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TGRAINING,
GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, SECRETARIAT, RANCHI.
4. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF
JHARKHAND, RANCHI.
5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA.
-----------
3 24/09/2010 Based on the earlier direction of the High Court
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8830 of 2001 the case of the
petitioner for promotion was considered but the
respondents ran into difficulty as the bifurcation of the
State and creation of Jharkhand led to certain
administrative problems. One of them related to the
decision on the strength of the cadre and the available
posts which could be filled up thereafter. The said order
has become impugned order in the present writ
application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
-2-
This was the position when a speaking order was
passed. Now a counter affidavit has come to be filed on
behalf of the State of Bihar where it has been stated that
the exercise of division of cadre and finalisation of
strength, roster clearance, vacancy position etc. is still
being carried out. The petitioner superannuated from
service on 31.07.2003. Since the retirement of the
petitioner also intervened, there was no occasion to
consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion after
retirement.
On such a stand being taken by the respondents,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
claim of the petitioner in terms of eligibility arose many
years ago. Process was also initiated but since the matter
dragged on, the above intervening circumstance came
into play. In that view of the matter the respondents
should consider granting her promotion from the back
date.
It is already held in several decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person has a right to
consideration for promotion but not right to promotion as
such. In addition, in the given facts that the State came
-3-
to be bifurcated and the exercise related thereto were
equally important for identification of number of posts,
roster clearance and the claim of other similarly situated
employees, there was no occasion to consider the case of
the petitioner from back date. The fact that the petitioner
superannuated on 31.07.2003 is also a consideration
whether any direction can be given for considering her
case for promotion now. Petitioner must reconcile to the
given situation though certain developments were not
within her control but even then the State of Bihar was
handicapped in taking a decision in the development
indicated in the earlier part of the order.
This writ application is, thus, dismissed.
AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)