IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5577 of 2005 LAXMI KANT PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : M/S Pramod Mishra Prafull Chandra Thakur For the State : Mr. A.S. Jha, S.C. 9, Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha, A.C.to S.C. 9. ----------- 3/ 29/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks promotion from the post of Work Circar to Supervisor Grade I. It is his specific case that persons junior to him have been promoted. His assertion in the writ petition in context of more than one named persons has not been denied in the counter affidavit and has been answered as ‘requiring no comments’. With regard to one of them, the counter affidavit states that he has been granted such promotion in pursuance of certain orders of this Court. The petitioner was promoted from the Work Charge Establishment to the post of Supervisor on 29.9.1992. He was reverted from the promoted post on 16.10.1992. He came to this court along with others in CWJC No. 10216 of 1995. The writ petition was disposed on 5.5.1997 noticing their stand that the issue involved was under consideration before a Bench of this court in CWJC No. 2524 of 1996, which appears to have travelled in L.P.A. No. 836 of 1997 finally disposed on 2 1.11.2006 (2007(1) PLJR 358) holding that an employee in the work charge establishment came into regular establishment after completion of one year in the work charge establishment, relying upon a Government order published in the Gazette of April, 1950 in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. This writ petition has been preferred prior to the pronouncement of the Division Bench as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court reported in 2007(4) PLJR 259 holding that persons in the work charge establishment have no claim for regularization by entering into regular establishment. Perhaps the scope and import of the judgment of the Full Bench can be culled out from paragraph 27 of the judgment, where it holds that it was being decided in the background of the facts in it. The Government notification of 1950 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, referred to in the earlier Division Bench judgment though noticed in paragraph 10 of the Full Bench judgment, does not find any discussion or consideration in respect thereof when the claim of the petitioner is exclusively based upon the same as held by the Division Bench and appears to have been acted by the Respondents also in case of others. 3 To this Court, the petitioner clearly comes within the domain of the Division Bench judgment of this court. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed with direction to Respondent no. 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Either persons like the petitioner in the work charge establishment by virtue of Government statutory notification of 1950 are entitled for promotion to Grade I Supervisor or they are not. It cannot be the case of the Respondents that while some of them are entitled to promotion others similarly situated may not be entitled, as presently appears to be the case of the Respondent in the counter affidavit. The Respondents while considering the claim of the petitioner are, therefore required to take an even handed decision. Even if they hold that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for such promotion in law, fairness requires the Respondents simultaneously to cancel such all illegal promotions. The petitioner cannot be singled out for such discriminatory treatment. This Court is not giving a mandamus for his promotion but is only reminding the Respondents while considering his case to correct any error that they have made with regard to others even though the petitioner be not entitled for the same. 4 Let such consideration be done and final reasoned and speaking order passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. If the Respondents find justification in his claim the issue of consequential benefits shall also have to be the subject matter of consideration. Should the petitioner requests for personal hearing, the same shall be granted to him. The writ petition stands disposed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)