IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9319 of 2011 SHIV KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI BINDESHWARI PRASAD GUPTA, R/O- VILLAGE DHARIYAMAN, P.S.- LAMBHUA, DISTRICT- SULTANPUR (U.P.) AT PRESENTLY POSTED AS SR. RESEARCH ASSISTANT, GR-1 (Q.A.) P.M.G.S.Y. WORKS, BIHAR MILL COMPOUND G.T. ROAD, MOHNIA, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR. Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN–CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., PLOT NO. 67-68, SECTOR-25, FARIDABAD (HARYANA). 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER (HR), N.P.C.C. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, PLOT NO. 67-68, SECTOR-25, FARIDABAD (HARYANA). 3. THE MANAGER (P & A), N.P.C.C. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, PLOT NO. 67-68, SECTOR-25, FARIDABAD (HARYANA). 4. THE ZONAL MANAGER, N.P.C.C. LTD, PMGSY WORKS, BIHAR ZONE, PATNA 15, I.A.S. COLONY, KIDWAIPURI, PATNA. 5. THE PROJECT MANAGER, N.P.C.C. PMGSY, KAIMUR WORKS, BIHAR MILL COMPOUND, G.T. ROAD, MOHANIA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BIHAR. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondent NPCC : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate ----------- 2 22.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent Chairman and Managing Director, National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. (for short the Corporation) whereby his representation filed in the light of order of this Court dated 17.1.2011 (Annexure-4) was considered and rejected. Petitioner was appointed as Senior Research Assistant on 3.8.1989. He was not granted any promotion which propelled him to file writ proceeding being C.W.J.C. 2 No. 946 of 2011. By a proceeding dated 17.1.2011, the said application was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation within a stipulated time. The grievance of the petitioner in the said writ petition is reflected from the aforesaid order dated 17.1.2011, relevant part whereof is extracted hereinbelow: “The petitioner seeks grant of first and second time bound promotions from the date his juniors have received the same, with respect to which he had filed representation before the respondent authorities firstly on 1.6.2006 and thereafter three reminders in the year 2009 and 2010, but nothing has come out of the same, according to learned counsel for the petitioner“ The authorities in the light of said order passed the impugned order dated 25.3.2011. It appears from perusal of the aforesaid order, particularly paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 thereof, that the petitioner failed to make out a case that persons similarly situate and junior(s) to him were granted time bound promotion/promotion whereas the case of the petitioner was left out. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to paragraph 2 of the order which reads as under: “2. That after considering the representations as well as relevant records and Rules thereon, it is found that Shri S.K. Gupta’s case for promotion from Senior Research Assistant to Assistant manager Gr. II (QC) was considered by the DPC held in the year 1995 but he was not eligible for promotion in the next higher grade as he had not completed the eligibility period of 3 four years plus three years moratorium period as on 1.7.1995 and also on 1.7.1996. Therefore, Shri Gupta was not promoted in the year 1996 for want of eligibility period prescribed therefor.” In the light of averments made in paragraph 18, it is submitted that if the petitioner was not found eligible for consideration for promotion in the year 1996 or 1997, definitely he had become eligible for being considered for promotion to the post/cadre of Assistant Manager (QC) in the subsequent years and yet his case was not considered for grant of promotion. This Court deems it apposite to reproduce the averments made in paragraph 18 which reads as under: “18.That further it is reiterated here that stand of respondent no. 1 that in 1996 the promotion of the petitioner was not considered by the D.P.C. as he has not completed the eligibility period of 4 years +3 years moratorium period. The submission of the petitioner in this context it is respectfully stated that the petitioner had joined on the post of Senior Research Assistant on 03.08.1989 and if on 01.01.1996 he was not considered for promotion due non completion of 4 + 3 years of eligibility period, but if on 1996 the petitioner was not considered for promotion then what about in 1997, 1998 and thereafter till today. Similarly the moratorium period as stated by the respondent No. 1 should have also been from 1996 onwards but for the reasons best known to the respondent no. 1, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant manager was not considered at all.” Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioner is eligible for being considered for the 4 next higher grade/post then the respondents may consider his case for promotion in accordance with the rule(s) governing the case of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner raised altogether a different issue before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 946 of 2011 which was taken note of and the authorities were directed to consider his pending representation. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities (Annexure-5), it appears that the case of discrimination in the matter of granting time bound promotion or promotion was not made out by the petitioner for the reasons set out in paragraph 5 and 6 of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now raised a issue relating to his substantive/regular promotion. Relevant facts/pleadings respecting the said grievance are not on record. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot pass any positive direction on the aforesaid submission/prayer of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court disposes of the application by the following order: Let the petitioner file a detailed representation claiming his right of consideration for substantive/regular promotion within 5 weeks from today along with a copy of the present order. If any such representation is filed within the aforesaid time, the concerned respondent shall consider 5 and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time preferably within 04 months of its filing. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)