Birendra Kumar Thakur vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

R.R. Prasad, J.—It is the case of the appellant that in order to promote the productivity, a Special Productivity Cell was established. Thereupon, one post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity) as well as two posts of Productivity Officers, having qualification of Production Engineering, were created. The appellant, having requisite qualification of B.Sc. (Engg.) Production, was appointed as Productivity Officer on 1.2.1978 and since then, the appellant has been working either on the post of the Productivity Officer or on the post of Inspector of Factories, but the appellant was not given promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity), which is lying vacant since long though the appellant at number of occasions had made representations for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity) but when No order was passed, the petitioner preferred a writ application bearing C.W.J.C, No. 1652 of 1997R praying therein to direct the respondents to promote hint to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of factories (Productivity), Ranchi which was dismissed on the ground that by virtue of the Notification issued on 6.3.2006 (Annexure-A to tin: supplementary affidavit presently it has been annexed as Annexure-28 to the LP.A.) the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of factories (Productivity) has been abolished and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant has preferred this L.p.A.

Learned Counsel appearing fur the appellant by referring Clause ''Kha'' of the Notification dated 6.3.2006 (Annexure-28) submits that the post of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity) has never been abolished and as such any finding, given by learned Single Judge that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief on account of the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity) being abolished, is quite erroneous, which is fit to be set aside.

For better appreciation of the case, relevant provision, as contained in Clauses ''Kha'' and ''Ga'' of the Notification dated 6.3.2006, needs to be taken notice of, which reads as follows:

Kha - Jharkhand Rajya Isthlt Upmukhya Karkhana Nirikshak, Utpadakta, Ranchi Ka Pad Samparlvertan Evam Sthanantaran Ke Paschat Ummukhya Karkhana Nirikshak, Dumka Ke Roop Mein, Usi Tarah Utpadakta Padadhlkari, Ranchi Ke Do Pad Samparlvertan Evam Sthanantaran Ke Paschat Karkhana Nirikshak, Seraikella-Kharsawan Anchal-1 (Mukhyalaya Adityapur). Evam Karkhana Nirikshak, Seraikella-Kharsawan Anchal-II (Mukhyalaya Seraikella) Ke Roup Mein Jana Jaylca.

Ga-Utpadakta Ke Pad Samanya Mein Samparivertit Hone Ke Karan Adiusoochna Nirgat Hone Ki Tithi Se Sabhi Upmukhya Karkhana Nirlkshak/Karkhana Nirikshak Dwara Apnli Kshetradhkkar Ke Antargat Utpadakta Ke Sambandhit Sablil Karyo Ka Sampadan Kiya Jayega.

From reading of Clause ''Kha'', it is apparent that the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity), Ranchi on being converted and on its transfer would be known as the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity), Dumka. Similarly, two posts of the Productivity Officer at Ranchi on its conversion and transfer would be know as the Factory Inspector, Seraikella-Kharsawan, Anchal-I (Head Quarter - Adityapur) and Factory Inspector, Seraikclla-Kharsawan, Anchal-II (Flead Quarter - Seraikella). Further as per Clause, ''Ga'', all the Deputy Chief Inspectors of Factories/Inspector of Factories on account of post of Productivity being converted into the post of general categories will be looking after the work of the productivity. Thus the said Clauses never speak about the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity), Ranchi being abolished, rather the same on its conversion would be known as the Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity), Dumka and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that post of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity), Ranchi got abolished seems to be erroneous and as such the finding recorded to that effect is hereby set aside. Even then the appellant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in view of the fact, as has been put forth on behalf of the respondents, that there has been only one cadre for the post of Inspector of Factories, Productivity Officers and Inspector of Factories (Chemical) and the strength of the~ cadre is 3rd which includes two posts of. Productivity Officers and one post of Inspector of Factories (Chemical) and that o gradation list had been prepared! pf all three posts of basic cadre In the year 1996 which has-been circulated among the persons, but none including the appellant raised any "objection over the said gradation list which shows that several persons are senior to the appellant and in that view of the matter, the appellant is certainly not entitled to get any relief as claimed.

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.