AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ananda Sen, J
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the office order dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of Chief Controller of Accounts whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 27 and two persons namely (i) Sri Satyajeet Banerjee & (ii) Sri Arvind Kumar Sinha have been placed at Sl. No. 19 and 20 respectively without taking into consideration the Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Audit Cadre Rule 2011 and further the fact that Sri Arvind Kumar Sinha belongs to later batch than to the petitioner’s batch.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to rectify the gradation list dated 09.07.2015 in the light of Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Audit Cadre Rule, 2011 to the extent that the petitioner to be placed at an appropriate place as per the said Rule and after rectification of the gradation list dated 15.01.2015, the consequential benefits be given to the petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give notional promotion to the petitioner to the post of Controller of Accounts from the date the juniors to the petitioner were given promotion to the post of Controller of Accounts vide letter no. 140 dated 08.03.2019 with entire consequential monetary benefits.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or declaration by this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner is senior to the persons namely Satyajeet Banerjee and Arvind Kumar Sinha taking into consideration the fact that first petitioner has secured more marks than to Satyajeet Banerjee in the 1st Graduate Standard Competition, 1981 and he joined the services under the respondent authorities prior to joining of Satyajeet Banerjee and therefore as per Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Audit Report Rule, 2011, the petitioner is senior and secondly on the point that Arvind Kumar Sinha does not belong to 1st Graduate Standard Competition, 1981 rather he belongs to 2nd Graduate Standard Competition, 1986, meaning thereby that Arvind Kumar Sinha even does not belong to 1st Graduate Standard Competition rather he belongs to later batch than to the petitioner’s batch and therefore in terms of Rule 13 of Jharkhand Audit Cadre Rule,2011 he is also junior to the petitioner but in spite of that in the gradation list dated 09.07.2015 they have been placed in seniority above the petitioner in contravention of Rule 13 of Jharkhand Audit Cadre Rule, 2011.”
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
From the arguments advanced by the petitioner, I find that the petitioner is praying to rectify the gradation list and also is praying for consequential promotion, though notionally, as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has already superannuated w.e.f. 28.02.2019.
In this writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed for, on the ground that the petitioner has already superannuated and thus there cannot be any retrospective promotion, as it is not possible for him to assume the charge on the promoted post.
4.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346, has held that there cannot be any retrospective promotion or seniority from the date when an employee has not even been borne in the Cadre.
4.2. Further, in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, a similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4.3. In this case, the seniority list which the petitioner is claiming to be quashed, is of the year 2015. The petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2019.
Thus, on the aforesaid ground, I don’t want to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.