IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9943 of 2009 1. RAMA KANT TIWARY SON OF LATE DEO NANDAN TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AT SAHEB TOLA(BEHIA), POLICE STATION BEHIA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR(ARA). 2. BIJENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AT HIRACHAK, POLICE STATION NAUBATPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA---PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. AREA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, GANDAK COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMBINED BUILDING, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. SECRETARY, GANDAK COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, COMBINED BUILDING, MUZAFFARPUR ------RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.11106 of 2007 1. RAMESH PRASAD SINGH(PRESIDENT) (BIHAR RAJYA SURVEKSAGK ABHIYANTRAN SANGTH), SON OF SHRI RAM SARAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AT BISHUNPUR BASHDEO, P.S. BISHNUPUR BASHDEO IN THE DISTRICT OF SITAMARHI. 2. SURESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE SUDIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ABGILLA, P.O. MOHANPUR, VIA PUNPUN, P.S. GOURICHAK IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA----PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. GANDAK AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE SECRETARY, GANDAK AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE BOARD OF DIRECTIONS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, GANDAK AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUZAFFARPUR---RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioners : M/s Aditya Narain Singh, Satyendra Nr. Singh No.-1, Advocates. For the Agency : Mr. Ishwari Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.B.N.Singh, AC to GA-IX, Advocate. ---------- 03. 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State as also counsel for the Gandak Command Area Development Agency(hereinafter referred to as “the Agency”). 2. Petitioners in the two writ applications were initially appointed as surveyors in the agency vide order dated 13.11.1975 contained in Annexure-1 series in C.W.J.C. No.9943 of 2009. Having completed ten years and more of satisfactory service as surveyor they - 2 - were allowed to officiate as junior engineer in their own pay scale of surveyor. While they were so officiating the agency decided to revert them to the post of surveyor. The order of reversion was challenged before this Court by the Karmchari Sangh of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3037 of 2004, which was disposed of under orders dated 13.12.2006, Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 9943 of 2009 directing the Board of Directors of the agency to consider the promotion of surveyor(s) on the post of junior engineer and to take independent decision in the matter. In compliance of the orders of this Court the agency considered the case of the petitioners as also other surveyor(s) for such promotion in their 35th meeting held on 20.4.2007, proceedings whereof are contained in Annexures-5 and 11 to the two writ applications respectively. Vide agenda item no.6 the agency decided not to grant the surveyor(s) promotion on the post of junior engineer. 3. By filing the two writ applications the petitioners have challenged the decision of the agency not to consider and grant the petitioners promotion on the post of junior engineer as violative of the Government decision dated 3.9.1983 annexed along with the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15.7.2003 passed in L.P.A. No. 913 of 1996 and other analogous matters, Annexure-14 in C.W.J.C. No.11106 of 2007 as also contrary to the order of the Water Resources Department bearing No.105 dated 13.7.2005, Annexure-15 in C.W.J.C. No.11106 of 2007 issued in compliance of the orders of this Court passed in L.P.A. No.913 of 1996 and other analogous matters - 3 - whereunder other surveyors having completed ten years of service were considered and allowed promotion on the post of junior engineer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforesaid Government decision dated 3.9.1983 and 13.7.2005, Annexures-14 and 15 submitted that the decision of the Board of Directors of the agency not to consider the surveyors for promotion on the post of junior engineer is contrary to the aforesaid two decisions of the Government as those two decisions have been taken by the Government in appreciation of the fact that none has been appointed as surveyor after 1976 and the cadre of surveyor is a dying cadre and the decision of the agency not to consider the surveyor(s) for promotion on the post of junior engineer being ignoramus of the aforesaid facts is arbitrary and should be quashed. 5. Counsel for the State and the agency have opposed the aforesaid submission. It is submitted on their behalf that the petitioners are serving the agency and are governed by the decision taken by the agency. The Government in the Water Resources Department is only entitled to take policy decision and not to consider the case of the employees of the agency for promotion. Appreciating such stand this Court under orders dated 13.12.2006, Annexure-4 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9943 of 2009 had called upon the agency to take appropriate decision in the matter taking into account the larger interest of the agency and in compliance of such direction of this Court the Board of Directors of the agency had taken the impugned - 4 - decision not to consider the surveyors for promotion on the post of junior engineer and this Court should be slow in annulling such decision. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that petitioners and others were appointed surveyors in the year 1975 and there has been no appointment on the post of surveyor after 1976, in the circumstances, cadre of surveyor(s) appear to be a dying cadre. The State Government appreciating the aforesaid fact that surveyor(s) appointed prior to 1976 are a separate class under decision dated 3.9.1983 resolved to promote surveyor(s) as junior engineer who have completed ten years of satisfactory service as surveyor. In the light of the Government decision dated 3.9.1983, this Court under orders dated 15.7.2003, Annexure-14 passed in L.P.A. No.913 of 1996 and other analogous matters allowed the promotion of surveyors as junior engineer to continue. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 15.7.2003, the Government passed order No.105 dated 13.7.2005, Annexure-15 and the surveyors who have been recruited prior to 1976 and had completed ten years of service as surveyor were allowed to continue as junior engineer. It appears the agency while passing the impugned resolution dated 20.4.2007, Annexures-5 and 11 in the two writ applications not to promote the surveyors on the post of junior engineer was not aware of the aforesaid two Government decisions. In the circumstances, the decision of the agency dated 20.4.2007, Annexures-5 and 11 in regard to agenda item no.6 resolving not to consider the surveyors for promotion on the post of junior engineer - 5 - appears to have been taken ignoramus of the relevant Government decisions, which is, accordingly, quashed with direction to the agency to reconsider the matter in the light of the government decision dated 3.9.1983 as also the orders of the Division Bench dated 15.7.2003, Annexure-14 passed in L.P.A. No.913 of 1996 and other analogous matters and the subsequent government order No.105 dated 13.7.2005, Annexure-15 in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within two months from today. It is made clear that if the agency decides to consider the surveyor(s) for promotion on the post of junior engineer, such decision of the agency should relate back to the date when the petitioners were allowed to hold charge as junior engineer. 7. Both the writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of. AFR Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)