S. M. Shamshad Ahmad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

The petitioner was duly appointed as Agriculture Instructor in the year 1967. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Block Agricultural Officer in the year 1975 and on being found eligible further extended 1^st Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1985 and consequential benefits were made accordingly. Upon reaching the age of superannuation, finally the petitioner was superannuated as Block Development Officer on 31.01.1999. Despite the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has not been extended the benefit of 2^nd Time Bound Promotion and for the first time with respect to 2^nd Time Bound Promotion the meeting of DPC was held in the year 2006 but the same was not considered in view of the pendency of Nagarnausa P.S. Case No. 323 of 2001. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 8096 of 2007. However, the same was disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to approach before the concerned authority, but no action has been taken. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on account of pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner has been deprived from the benefit of 2^nd Time Bound Promotion and now such criminal case has been ended with the acquittal of the petitioner by judgment dated 12.03.2020.

In view of the above mentioned changed circumstances, the petitioner approached the concerned authority; however, no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned Advocate for the State prays for a short adjournment to apprise this Court with regard to the present position of the case of the petitioner.

Having considered the nature of the grievance as also the fact that the impediment, which was coming in the way to extend the benefit of 2^nd Time Bound Promotion, no longer survives on account of the judgment of acquittal having been passed in favour of the petitioner in Trial No. 226 of 2020 vide order dated 12.03.2020, this Court finds that the petitioner has made out a case for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of the changed circumstances as reported hereinabove, preferably within a period of two months and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

Suffice it to observe that in case the claim of the petitioner finds favour, all consequential benefits must be accorded to him

The writ petition stands disposed.