IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12790 of 2009 ============================================= Ram Sewak Thakur , s/o- late Jay Narayan Thakur, r/o- village-Bituhar, P.S.- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani. At present posted as Junior Electrical Engineer, APDRP Cell Board Head Quarter, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Officer on Special Duty, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs..Shikha Kumari @Singh Mr. Rana Pratap Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ============================================= 6 20-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board. Petitioner has filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction upon the officials of the Bihar School Examination Board (for short “ the Board”) to grant him the two time bound promotions which became due w.e.f. 26.12.1993 and 26.12.2002 in accordance with the Rules in vogue in the Board. Petitioner joined the service of the respondent Board as Junior Electrical Engineer on 26.12.1984. He became entitled to the first time bound promotion w.e.f. 26.12.1993. In the meantime, a vigilance case being Vigilance Case No. 113 of 1990 was lodged 2 against several named and unknown employees of the Board. On conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in which the petitioner was not sent up. Subsequently, the Investigating agency again submitted a final form in which the petitioner and others were sent up for trial. Cognizance of the matter was whereafter taken by the Court in seisin of the matter and it is admitted position that the said trial is still underway. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Government of Bihar in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms issued a resolution dated 11.9.2002 setting out the procedure of grant of promotion/adhoc promotion in the matters where departmental/judicial proceeding are pending for more than 02 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the Board has adopted in to to the aforesaid resolution of the Government as contained in Annexure-2. It is the petitioner’s case that persons in the cadre, who are junior to him, have since been considered and granted time bound promotion whereas the same has been denied to him on account of pendency of the criminal proceeding/trial. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9099 of 2002 (Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit) considered the scope of the provision contained in Government resolution dated 11.9.2002 and by a proceeding dated 20.6.2005 disposed of the matter directing the authorities to 3 consider the case of the petitioners of the aforesaid case for grant of adhoc promotion. Learned counsel placed before the Court the entire order (Annexure-4). It is thus contended that the petitioner is also entitled to be considered at least for grant of adhoc promotion which may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be conditional since there is a criminal proceeding pending against him. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board. Learned counsel, while opposing the writ petition relied mainly on averments made in paragraph 6 thereof which reads as under: “(6). That in reply to the statement made in paragraph No. 2 and of the writ application it is stated that the Board has adopted Resolution No. 1301 dated 19.12.2003 in which there are following conditions where the promotion will be considered. A. Suspension B. Decision with regard to initiate disciplinary proceeding and chargesheet has been issued. C. Criminal case pending in the criminal court for criminal offence. It is clear that sanction of prosecution has been done vide office order No. 271 dated 27.1.98 and the matter is still pending in Vigilance Department. On the above ground two time bound promotion to the petitioner has not been given by the Board as yet.” Learned counsel contended that since there is already a criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner, the authorities 4 did not grant him time bound promotion. There is no controversy with regard to length of service of the petitioner for grant of first and second time bound promotion w.e.f. 26.12.1993 and 26.12.2001 respectively. There is also no controversy that the criminal proceeding was lodged sometimes in the year 1990 and is still pending trial even after expiry of more than two decades. There is also no dispute between the parties that the resolution of the Government (Annexure-2) is applicable to the employees of the respondent Board. Clause (6) of the said circular/Resolution provides for consideration and grant of adhoc promotion in respect of employees against whom judicial or departmental proceeding instituted against them remained pending for more than 02 years. The same can be considered for grant of adhoc promotion which shall be subject to the conditions in Clause 9 thereof. Learned counsel has rightly relied on an order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9099 of 2002 (Annexure-4) to substantiate his claim. This Court, while dealing with the aforesaid case observed as under: “I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. It is true that paragraph-2 of the said Govt. resolution provides that if criminal case is pending against a government servant then his case for promotion can not be considered. But, that in my opinion, is for regular promotion as it is evident from paragraph-6 of the same Govt. resolution which provides for grant of 5 ad-hoc promotion after completion of two years of pendency of disciplinary proceeding/criminal case on consideration of the entire record and not that he shall be denied of ad-hoc promotion on account of pendency of departmental proceeding/criminal case.” Regard being had to the submissions of the parties and the materials placed on record, this Court is convinced that the relief prayed for in the application be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The respondents, particularly respondent No. 2 (Secretary of the Board) is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of adhoc time bound promotion in terms of circular/resolution dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure-2) and pass appropriate orders within a maximum period of five weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)