Krishna Chandra Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.