CIVIL APPEAL 16935 of 2013 on 13 June 1992

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, New Secretariat

3. The District Education Office, Patna

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna

5. The Accountant General, Bihar

.... .... Respondent/s

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHAORAL ORDER

3 18-03-2015 Since this writ application has been restored today vide separate order passed in M.J.C No. 4853 of 2013, this Court has also heard learned counsel for the parties on the merit of this case.

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order/s direction quashing the decision taken by District Establishment Committee, Patna in its meeting dated 13.06.1992 cancelling the promotion of the petitioner alongwith others from Assistant Teacher to Headmaster without any show cause/notice to him which was given to him vide Letter No.-7712 dated 26.06.1991.

B. A writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other relief/s directing the Respondents to

(i) Treat the petitioner to be a headmaster w.e.f 26.06.1991, pay him his difference of salary till his retirement on 31.01.2005 and calculate his retrial due according and pay him the difference.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked to explain the delay in moving this Court by filing this writ application on 26.08.2013, i.e., after 21 years of the cause of action has no other answer except that the petitioner was moving from pillar to post by way of his pressing for disposal of his representations. Such mere filing of representation awaiting result of the representation however can never explain such a huge delay of more than two decades.

Let it be noted that the petitioner’s promotion in the B.A trained pay scale in the year 1992 was found to be illegal and cancelled. The petitioner continued in service for next 13 years because he had retired only on 31.01.2005, and therefore, if anyone junior to him even in that period till January 2005 could have been given the benefit of promotion in B.A. trained pay scale probably the petitioner could have come out with similar case but that also is not the grievance of the petitioner. He only wants that one of the order of the year 1992

should be given effect to and granted the he should be benefit of B.A trained pay scale. The hand written order of promotion of the petitioner dated 26.06.1991, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna giving the order for payment of salary to the petitioner in the B.A. Trained pay scale even without their being any order of such promotion will itself go to show that the petitioner was never promoted in the prescribed manner on the basis of B.A. trained pay scale.

The District Superintendent of Eduction was infact never authorized in person to give promotion on the post of B.A trained pay scale and such power was vested only in the district Education Establishment Committee in the relevant period of 1991-92.

In that view of the matter, this Court would also not find any error in the subsequent order of the year 1992 cancelling the earlier order of 1991 giving the petitioner benefit of B.A trained pay scale even without promoting on the post of B.A. trained pay scale. The Ranjan/- U

petitioner has therefore got no case even on merits.

Be that as it may, this Court does not find any reason now to interfere in the matter specially when a decade has also passed from the date of retirement of the petitioner and he has already been paid his retirement benefit on the basis of his entitlement on the basis of salary drawn by him at the date of retirement on 31.01.2005.

That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed both on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)