Skip to content


Chitranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantChitranjan Prasad Verma
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Ors
Excerpt:
.....of jharkhand, in its department of health and family welfare, as contained in annexure-5 to the writ application, whereby the petitioner has been promoted to the post of block extension educator with effect from the date of the order, i.e., 3.3.2003. the petitioner claims the said benefit with effect from 29.9.1994, when the earlier promotion of the petitioner to the said post was cancelled by the state government.3. the petitioner was initially appointed on 30.12.1981 in the unified state of bihar, as vaccinator and thereafter, he was taken into the cadre of male family planning health worker in the superior field worker post. the petitioner was again promoted to the rank of computer (sanganak) on 28.6.1983 on the recommendation of the establishment committee. ultimately by order.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2923 of 2010 with I. A. No. 3696 of 2016 Chitranjan Prasad Verma ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Health Commissioner, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

5. The Regional Dy. Director, Health Services, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribag.

6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad.

7. The Addl. Chief Medical Officer, Dhanhad.

8. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Giridih. .…. … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : M/s V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate & Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, JC to AAG -------- 6/ 22.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by that portion of the Order No. 63 dated 3.3.2003 issued by respondent No.2, the Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, in its Department of Health and Family Welfare, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, whereby the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Block Extension Educator with effect from the date of the order, i.e., 3.3.2003. The petitioner claims the said benefit with effect from 29.9.1994, when the earlier promotion of the petitioner to the said post was cancelled by the State Government.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed on 30.12.1981 in the unified State of Bihar, as Vaccinator and thereafter, he was taken into the cadre of Male Family Planning Health Worker in the Superior Field Worker post. The petitioner was again promoted to the rank of Computer (Sanganak) on 28.6.1983 on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. Ultimately by order dated 19.1.1991, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Block Extension Educator, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. -2- 4. The promotion of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled by order dated 29.9.1994 along with other employees, whereby the promotion granted to 41 employees were cancelled by the State Government. Aggrieved by this order, two writ applications were filed, being C.W.J.C. No. 3068 of 1994 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 3057 of 1994 (R). Those writ applications were allowed, and the order demoting the employees was set aside and the respondents were directed to provide the consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, if any, within a period of four months, to those petitioners. Since, the case of the petitioner was squarely covered with those decisions, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4213 of 1996, which was ultimately disposed of, by order dated 12.8.2002, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. In the said order, this Court took note of the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3068 of 1994 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 3057 of 1994 (R) and found substance in the claim of the petitioner holding that if the statements were correct, there was no reason as to why the petitioner should not be granted similar relief, as had been granted to the petitioners of the aforesaid two writ applications. The matter, however, was remanded back to the concerned authorities to look into the matter and pass an order in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to serve the copy of order upon the Secretary, Department of Health, who was directed to look into the matter and pass an order.

5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, a reasoned order has been passed by the respondent No.2, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, being the Order No. 63 dated 3.3.2003, whereby the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator, but it is mentioned that the promotion shall be effective from the date of issuance of the order.

6. Against the said order dated 3.3.2003, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, the petitioner gave his representation to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, which was forwarded by the competent authority on 23.8.2003, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. It also appears that the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bermo, in the district of Bokaro, sought guidelines for payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner. However, it appears that no action was taken on this representation and the letter. -3- 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent-authorities, denying the benefit of promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect, is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3068 of 1994 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 3057 of 1994 (R), the petitioners of those writ applications have been given the promotion with retrospective effect giving them all the benefits. This statement has also been made in the writ application in paragraph-29, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has came to know that Sri Sant Kumar Sinha, who was also reverted along with petitioner by the respondent, on 29.9.1994, has been paid all his arrear of difference of salary and other benefits by the respondent-Chief Medical Officer, Giridih, contained in Memo No. 205 dated 10.1.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of the respondents denying the benefit of arrears of salary to the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, that the petitioner could be given the benefits of promotion only with effect from 3.3.2003 when the petitioner was given the said promotion pursuant to the direction of this Court. It is stated in the counter affidavit that since it is specifically stated in the order that the promotion shall be effective from the date of issuance of the order, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, there is no reply to the statement made in paragraph-29 of the writ application.

9. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4213 of 1996, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, clearly shows that there is no reason as to why the petitioner should also not be granted similar relief, as had been granted to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 3068 of 1994 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 3057 of 1994 (R). The discussions made in this order about the orders passed in the aforementioned writ applications clearly show that the order cancelling the promotion had been quashed by this Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners had already worked on the promoted posted for about eleven years, during which, they were provided -4- training and had gathered efficiency and experience. Accordingly, setting aside the order of reversion, this Court directed to provide all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, if any, within four months.

10. In view of the aforementioned facts, I find no reason as to why the petitioner should be denied all the consequential benefits including the arrears of salary from the date his earlier promotion was cancelled, i.e., 29.9.1994. The action of the respondent authorities, particularly, respondent No.2, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, in denying the consequential benefits to the petitioner with retrospective effect, is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.

11. Accordingly, only the impugned portion of the Order No. 63 dated 3.3.2003, issued by the respondent No.2, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, so far it states that the promotion shall be effective with effect from the date of the order, is hereby, quashed. The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be given all the consequential benefits of his promotion including the arrears of salary to the post since the date of cancellation of his earlier promotion, i.e., 29.9.1994. The respondent No. 2 is directed to implement this order positively within the period of three months from the date of production/communication of this order.

12. This writ application is accordingly, allowed, with the directions, as above. The aforesaid interlocutory application also stands disposed of. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //