2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S). No. 3178 of 2004
...
Yogendra Poddar ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Bihar State road Transport Corporation, Patna
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Patna
3. The Chief of Operation, Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Patna
4. The Works Manager, Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Division Dumka
5. The Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Dumka Division ...
Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : - Mr. P.P.N.Roy, Advocate.
...
6/17.02.2010
Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is
disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector in the light
of the Office Order No. 48 dated 09.01.1998 (Annexure-2) issued under the
signature of the Operation Chief (Respondent No. 3) whereby several other
employees, junior to the petitioner in the gradation list, have been promoted, while
the petitioner has been ignored. A further prayer has also been made for directing
the respondents to grant him second time bound promotion from the year 1994,
i.e. the year from which he became eligible for such promotion.
3. Upon hearing the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are that the
petitioner was appointed under the respondent Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation on 01.02.1974 on the post of Junior Clerk.
After having served for the requisite number of years, he had earned his
first time bound promotion in the year 1984 and thereafter, his second time bound
promotion was due in the year 1994.
It further appears that by an Office Order dated 09.01.1998, promotions to
the Junior Clerks to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was given but the
petitioner’s case was not considered.
It is not denied by the respondents that in the gradation list the petitioner’s
name stands at Sl. No. 14.
4. In the counter affidavit, stand has been taken by the respondents against
the maintainability of this writ application on the ground that an alternative
remedy under the I.D. Act is available to the petitioner which he ought to have
taken for redressal of his grievance. It is informed that other employees with the
same nature of grievance had also filed the writ applications but the same were
2
dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the writ petitioners would avail the
alternative remedy available under the I.D. Act.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent B.S.R.T.C. informs that the petitioner’s
prayer for grant of second time bound promotion is in the process of being
considered along with the cases of similarly situated other employees.
Learned counsel adds further that now that the B.S.R.T.C. has been
separated, the employees of the B.S.R.T.C. who are working in the State of
Jharkhand, are now being controlled by the Transport Department of the State of
Jharkhand and any financial liability of the B.S.R.T.C. towards its employees, has
now to be undertaken by the State of Jharkhand and since the State of Jharkhand
has not been impleaded as a necessary party, this writ application is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Even though there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner
under the I.D. Act, but considering the stand taken by the respondent B.S.R.T.C.
in its counter affidavit virtually accepting the petitioner’s prayer for considering
his case for his second time bound promotion, and further the assurance given for
considering his case in the light of the reliefs claimed, it would be futile to refer
the petitioner to seek his reliefs through the alternative remedy.
7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this application is
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the
concerned authorities of the respondents including the concerned authorities in the
Transport Department of the State of Jharkhand and within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of representation, the concerned authorities of the
respondents as also the authorities of the Transport Department of the State of
Jharkhand, shall take an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s representation by
recording a reasoned and speaking order and effectively communicate such
decision to the petitioner.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/