AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Doshit, C.J.—This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Mundrika Prasad, a retired Judicial Officer of the State of Bihar.
The petitioner claims that he was a Sub-ordinate Judge in the Judicial Service of the State of Bihar as on 1st January 1985 and that he is entitled to be benefit of promotion to the 3rd Level Need Based Post as envisaged by the Government Resolution dated 12th April 1990.
Under Resolution dated 12th April 1990, the Government of Bihar revised the pay-scales of the members of the Bihar Judicial Service. Paragraph 10 of the said Resolution specifically deals the "Selection Grade" earlier available to the officers in the Bihar Judicial Service. It is mentioned that with effect from 1st January 1986, the "Selection Grade" was abolished. Instead, the post in the service shall be on need based principle. Twenty percent of the total posts were identified as 1st Level Need Based Post, twelve & half percent for 2nd Level Need Based Post and two & half percent for the 3rd Level Need Based Post.
Pursuant to the said Resolution, 3rd Level Need Based Post i.e. two & half percent of 1213 sanctioned posts were identified under Government Resolution dated 4th April 1997. Pursuant to the said Resolution, under Notification dated 27th May 1998, as many as twenty one officers were allowed the higher pay-scale of 3rd Level Need Based Post with effect from 1st January 1986. According to the petitioner, some of them were junior to the petitioner. The petitioner should, therefore, be allowed the same benefit.
The Petition is contested by the High Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Piyush Lall has appeared for the High Court. Mr. Piyush Lall has submitted that those twenty one officers, who were allowed the higher pay-scale of 3rd Level Need Based Post, were the members of the Sub-ordinate Judicial Service as on 1st January 1986 whereas the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in August 1985. In other words, on 1st January 1986 the petitioner was not a member of the Sub-ordinate Judicial Service. He was, therefore, not entitled to be considered for promotion to 3rd Level Need Based Post.
In support of this contention Mr. Lall has relied upon Rules 5,7 & 16 of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). He has submitted that whether officiating or substantive, once the petitioner was promoted to work as Additional District & Sessions Judge, he was entitled to the higher salary of Additional District & Sessions Judge as envisaged by Rule 7 of the Rules. He has further submitted that clause (e) of Rule 16 of the Rules deals with the seniority of the Judicial Officers. The said clause also does not differentiate appointments made on officiating or substantive basis for determination of inter-se seniority. Thus, for all practical purposes, the petitioner was appointed to the Bihar Superior Judicial Service by promotion in August 1985. The very claim of the petitioner that as on 1st January 1986 the petitioner was substantively a Sub-ordinate Judge requires to be rejected. The petitioner having been promoted to the Superior Judicial Service, his claim for higher pay-scale of 3rd Level Need Based Post in Bihar Judicial Service is fallacious and needs to be rejected.
We have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates. Aforesaid facts are not in dispute. In our opinion, Mr. Lall is right in submitting that for all practical purposes the petitioner did hold the post in Superior Judicial Service continuously since August 1985. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be a Sub-ordinate Judge as on 1st January 1986; nor was he entitled to the benefit of promotion to 3rd Level Need Based Post identified in April 1997.
No other contention is raised before us. We see no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. The Petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their own cost.