IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1267 of 1997 1. Ram Lakhan Rai son of late Janak Rai, resident of village Lakhanpur Tal, P.S. Deshri, District Vaishali 2. Megh Nath Singh son of Sri Rajeshwar Singh 3. Banka Tiwari son of late Amol Tiwari 4. Balhari Sarkar son of Sri Banwali Sarkar 5. Anandi Rai son of Sri Sukdeo Rai 6. Hulash Choudhary son of Sri Mahadeo Choudhary 7. Ram Dayal Singh son of Sri Dhanudhari Singh at present all serial no. 1 to 7 are Junior Mechanic grad – 1, Mechanical Division Gandak Project Water resources department Balmikinagar, West Champaran ……….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner – cum – Secretary Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 2. Chief Engineer, Mechanical Water Resources Department Bihar, Patna 3. Superintending Engineer, Mechanical (Irrigation Mechanical Circle Serpur river Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur) 4. Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Gandak Project, Valmikinagar, West Champaran …….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 10 5.12.2011 Heard Mr. Tara Nath Jha, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.C. to S.C. 23 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 550 dated 3.5.1993 by which the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Gandak Project, Valmikinagar, West Champaran had stopped payment of the higher pay scale granted to the petitioners for the post of Junior Mechanic Grade- I as well as order contained in Memo No. 2720 dated 14.12.1993 of the Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department as also the office order contained 2 in Memo No. 2146 dated 29.11.1996 of the Chief Engineer by which their claim for maintaining such promotion has been rejected. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present writ application are noted hereinbelow:- The petitioners were originally working in the Work Charge Establishment. They were granted promotion to Junior Mechanic Grade-I by the Establishment Committee headed by the Superintendent Engineer and pursuant to the same , they started getting all the benefits of promotion. By the impugned order dated 3.5.1993, their salary for higher post was stopped by order of the Executive Engineer. This was done without any show cause to the petitioners. The petitioners filed CWJC No. 4932/93 challenging the order dated 03.5.1993 and the same was disposed off on 26.7.1993 directing the petitioners to file representation before the Chief Engineer. It appears that by an order dated 14.12.1993 the Chief Engineer considered the matter and passed order granting time bound promotion. The petitioners were not satisfied on the ground that the representation was for considering the regular promotion 3 and thus the grant of time bound promotion not being an issue, the order according to them, was erroneous. Under the circumstances the order dated 3.5.1993 and 14.12.1993 were challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 5013/94 which was disposed off on 09.7.1996 by a direction to the Chief Engineer to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion and dispose off the same by a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In this back ground the order impugned dated 29.11.1996 came to be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned dated 29.11.1996 is totally erroneous since it has only considered the fact that the earlier promotion given to the petitioners was not valid as the same had been granted by a Committee headed by the Superintending Engineer, who was not competent authority to consider the order for grant such promotion which could have been granted only by the Committee headed by the Chief Engineer. He submits that the said consideration is erroneous since this Court had remanded the matter for considering the petitioners for regular 4 promotion instead of time bound promotion and not as to whether they were entitled to promotion. Learned counsel submits the that this Court was conscious of the fact that it was the Chief Engineer who was competent to consider grant of such promotion and that is why it was remanded to the Chief Engineer. He submits that the Chief Engineer has failed to consider the case of the petitioners as per order of remand by the High Court. Learned counsel further submits that initially the stand of the respondents was that promotion in the regular establishment, from the Work Charge Establishment was not permissible as per by the order dated 08.5.1997 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No 2524/1996. However, he submits that by order dated 1.11.2006 the said order has been set aside. It has been held that if a person works in the Work Charge Establishment for one year then automatically he is deemed to have entered into the regular establishment. Therefore they are entitled to get promotion to the Regular Establishment. The said decision has been rendered in the case of Koshi Project Worker’s 5 Association Vrs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 358. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that exercise of considering the promotion to the petitioners might be only academic since they have already been granted their due under the time bound policy. Learned counsel for the petitioners contested the same by submitting that the effective dates are different and thus the petitioners stand to loose monetarily. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this Court feels that the order impugned has not properly considered the case of the petitioners specially in view of the order of this Court dated 9.7 96 in CWJC No. 5013/94. Consideration was to be with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion and grant of pay scale of Junior Mechanical Grade-I. The Chief Engineer was to consider the same and if they were found fit for promotion, they would be entitled for all consequential benefits. This, according to the Court, not being done, the impugned order dated 29.11.1996 is not legally sustainable. However, in view of the fact that the 6 learned counsel for the parties are not readily in a position to assist this Court as to whether, after grant of time bound promotion, any further benefits are accruable to the petitioners, this Court feels it expedient to give liberty to the petitioners to represent their case before the Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna, for considering the matter in its true spirit and also in light of the observations made by this Court earlier in the order dated 9.7.1996 in CWJC No. 5013/94 with regard to eligibility of the petitioners for such promotion. The same shall be considered at least from the time when the case of the petitioners become eligible for consideration in accordance with law and also taking into account that the same is not done in isolation inasmuch as their cases are also liable for consideration by the concerned Chief Engineer keeping in mind the order of this Court passed in Koshi Project Worker’s Association (Supra). If such a representation is filed within six months from today, along with a copy of this order the Chief Engineer concerned shall take a decision within a period of two months thereafter. The order impugned dated 29.11.1996 contained in memo No. 2146 7 shall not stand in the way of such consideration. With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition stands disposed off. The Chief Engineer shall also verify whether the order in the case of Koshi Project Worker’s Association (Supra) still holds the field or not. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)