IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2545 of 2004 SHIV KUMAR PANDEY SON OF SHRI JAHANVI DUTTA PANDEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUBARY, P.S. KARPEE, DISTRICT ARWAL AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPECIAL BRANCH, BIHAR, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL), PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HUMAN RIGHTS), PATNA. 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Manoj Priyadarshi & Sunil Kumar Dubey. For the State :- Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh. ------ 3 12/07/2010 Petitioner is a retired Sub Inspector of Police who has filed the present writ application for a direction upon the respondents to change his date of seniority on the rank of Sub Inspector of Police to 25.9.1981 and also to confirm him on the post with effect from 25.9.1982. Challenge is in respect of the gradation list issued by the respondents dated 21/11/2003 giving the petitioner that benefit from the year 1994 which obviously has not been readily accepted by him considering it to be detrimental to his interest. There is a long history behind the present writ - 2 - application. Certain ad-hoc promotions had been issued in favour of certain Sub Inspector of Police (Special Branch) and were officiating on that rank for a while. The said ad-hoc promotion was not considered to be in consonance with the Police Manual and the Rules and, thus, they were reverted. On a long drawn battle on the question of reversion and the date of promotion, the High Court rendered its opinion in a batch of writ applications by virtue of annexure-1 to this writ application. The Division Bench held that the petitioners’ seniority in the rank of Sub Inspector have to be reckoned from the date of their initial officiation in the said rank. Status quo ante was restored by virtue of notification issued in Annexure-2. The State’s S.L.P. filed against the Division Bench decision was dismissed but that dismissal was primarily on the ground of limitation and delay as would be evident from annexure-3 to the writ application. A gradation list issued in the year 2000 did indicate the petitioner’s seniority though there was some minor mistake in the same which stood corrected but it is apparent from the pleadings and evidence brought on record that the issue of seniority and the date from which such benefit was to - 3 - accrue to the petitioner and other persons similarly situated did not come to rest. Division Bench while granting benefit to those petitioners did not hear the persons who were likely to be affected by the relief. Hundreds of people were directly affected by such a decision and they were never made party to the writ application. Some more litigations came before this Court because the interest of more than 150 Inspectors and 400 persons of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police were obviously affected. In a similar circumstance State carried the matter to the Supreme Court again. Earlier S.L.P. contained in annexure-3 was dismissed because there was delay of 364 days but in the other matter a delay of 679 days was allowed and the Court decisively intervened in the matter finding many infirmities in the relief granted and the havoc it had played on the entire cadre and other Officers. In this regard decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another reported in 2000(3) PLJR, 81 (S.C.) is of vital significance. Taking cue from the observation and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a notification dated 21.11.2003 - 4 - contained in Annexure-9 came to be issued by the State respondents. The background under which such notification had to be issued is indicated therein and the order even quotes a paragraph of the decision of the Supreme Court (Kameshwar Prasad and another supra) as well as the orders passed by this High Court in a couple of contempt cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a benefit had accrued to him by virtue of a judicial order passed by the High Court, the same cannot be taken away by the respondents in the manner as contained in annexure-9. Subsequent change brought about by the respondents as to the date from which he was to be conferred the benefit of promotion i.e. 1994 cannot be allowed. It must relate back to the year 1981, the date from which the petitioner was given ad-hoc promotion in an officiating basis. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was worthy of consideration provided the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not intervened in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Singh (Supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that the benefit conferred upon some of the petitioners by virtue of the Division Bench decision rendered earlier had - 5 - adversely affected the interest of large number of persons who were never noticed, heard and made party in the proceeding. Situation of that kind cannot be allowed to prevail and it raised more disputes. The argument being put by the petitioner in support of benefit of promotion from the date of ad-hoc officiation and thereafter promotion was held to be illegal, if not in teeth of the provisions of Police Manual by the Apex Court. The decision rendered by the High Court and the benefit accruing therefrom to the petitioner or other individuals will have to be seen in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Effect of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision cannot be overlooked. The rationale and the reasonings are there in the judgment with directions for the respondents to re-consider the matter of all those persons who had been given ad-hoc promotion, which was not permissible. It was in this background the petitioner was granted promotion from the year 1994. It must also be recorded that the State has categorically stated in the counter affidavit that besides the Supreme Court decision some other similarly situated persons - 6 - had filed contempt applications pleading violation of the earlier direction of the Division Bench but all those contempt applications were dismissed as not being maintainable in light of the above developments. Some of those orders are annexures A & B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The narration given to the whole litigation, various orders passed by this Court coupled with the Supreme Court decision has forced the respondents to issue annexure-9. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in annexure-9. The fall out of Annexure-9 will be there which is not only limited to the present petitioner but on a number of persons of similar kind because there are yet another group of people, who had also been granted relief by the Apex Court and that cannot be taken away by the respondents. Annexure-9 is a result of the Apex Court decision. Writ application being devoid of merit is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)