IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14436 of 2011 ============================================= Md.Kalimuddin @ Md.Kalim, s/o- late Hanif, r/o- mohalla, Habibpur, P.S.- Mojahidpur, Town and District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, Bhagalpur, through its Municipal Commissioner. 2. The Additional Municipal Commissioner-cum-the Incharge Establishment Section, Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, Bhagalpur. 3. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha For the Corporation : Mrs. Pravina Kumari, ============================================= 3 20-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. Petitioner was appointed on Class-IV (Peon) on 10.10.1979 by the then Bhagalpur Municipality (now Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation). It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 9.11.1979 (Annexure-3), he was entrusted duties of the post of Tax Collector along with some other similarly placed employees. By order dated 30.9.1989, the respondent Corporation promoted four persons said to be junior to the petitioner ignoring his case for such promotion. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he represented the matter but the same yielded no result. In 2 these factual background, he moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4629 of 1990. The said matter was considered along with C.W.J.C. No. 4620 of 1990. This Court by a proceeding dated 12th November, 1998 (Annexure-5) disposed of the said writ petition, the operative portion culled out in paragraph 5 thereof reads as under:- “5. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned and considering the fact that the petitioners’ representation are yet pending, I consider it expedient to dispose of both the writ petitions with the direction to the Administrator of the Corporation (respondent No. 2) to examine the aforementioned grievance of the petitioners afresh keeping in view Rule-6 of Rules for Regulating the Appointment Duties, Discipline & Appeal of the officers & Servants of the Patna Municipal Corporation, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is applicable to the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation also and dispose of the same after giving notice and opportunity to persons, who may be likely to be affected afresh by a reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall produce copy of this orders before the said authority along with fresh representation, if so advised.” It is the case of the petitioner that he filed representations on 16.9.1999, 24.4.2002 and 23.5.2005 but those representations again failed to elicit any result. It is also the stand that the petitioner continued to discharge 3 duties of the Tax Collector as would appear from Annexures-9, 9/1 and 10 of the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to grant of full salary of the post since he has officiated on the post. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that this Court by order contained in Annexure-5 had directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation which, in turn, was directed to be disposed of within two months. It is contended that the pleadings on record does not indicate that the petitioner filed any such fresh representation in terms of order dated 12th November, 1998 (Annexure-5). It is pointed out the petitioner thereafter maintained a silence and did not approach this Court either for grant of relief and/or by filing an application for initiating contempt proceeding for willful disobedience of the order dated 12th November, 1998 (Annexure-5). Learned counsel submits that after expiry of about 13 years, the present application has been lodged seeking a relief that the petitioner be considered and granted promotion to the post of Tax Collector on the ground that persons junior to him were considered and promoted to the next higher post by order dated 30.9.1989 (Annexure-4). Learned counsel 4 submits that so far as the remaining grievance of the petitioner is concerned, he may be granted liberty to approach the respondent ventilating the said grievance which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4629 of 1990 raising a grievance that he should be considered and promoted to the post of Tax Collector w.e.f. 30.9.1989 on the ground that persons junior to him were considered and promoted whereas the case of the petitioner was left out. This Court having found that the issue involved appreciation of questions of fact, instead of granting any substantive relief, directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation raising the aforesaid grievance and the respondents, in turn, were directed to dispose of the same within a particular time frame. It appears that the petitioner thereafter did not take any step and maintained silence. The pleadings on record do not show that any such fresh representation along with the copy of the order was filed before the authorities within the time granted by the Court. 5 However, subsequently, few representations were filed on behalf of the petitioner. After expiry of about 13 years, petitioner has again approached this Court with the aforesaid grievance. In my view, the petitioner cannot be granted the said relief of consideration of his case for promotion to the next higher post, which according to the petitioner is the post of Tax Collector, w.e.f. 30.9.1989. This takes the Court to another issue raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has been argued with reference to pleadings on record including Annexure-9, 9/1 and 10 that the respondents are still allowing the petitioner to discharge duties of the post of Tax Collector. If the respondents are allowing the petitioner to discharge the duties of the higher post of Tax Collector then in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar Service Code as well as the ratio laid down in L.P.A. No. 517 of 1998 (Annexure-11), he is entitled to be paid the salary admissible to the post of Tax Collector. Regard being had to the aforesaid contention and the materials on record, this Court would permit the petitioner to file a detail representation in this regard before the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent Corporation within four weeks supported by all relevant documents, if 6 any, as also a copy of the present order. If any such representation is filed in the aforesaid manner, the respondent no. 1 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law as quickly as possible preferably within eight weeks of its filing. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Let it be recorded that this Court has not gone into the contention made by the petitioner that on account of the respondents permitting him to discharge duties of higher post, he is entitled to full salary of the said post. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)