IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.104 of 2008 1. RAM KUBER SINGH, S/O LATE KAMATA SINGH, BASIC HEALTH WORKER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, JAMALPUR, P.S.-JAMALPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN AT CHAPRA. 2. MOSTT.URMILA DEVI (SUBSTITUTED HEIRS OF DECEASED JAI PRAKASH SINGH). ………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA, DISTRICT-CHAPRA. 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTRICT-CHAPRA. …………………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.1827 of 2008 BIJAY BHUSHAN SINGH, S/O SRI BRAHMDEO PRASAD SINGH, WORKING AS COMPUTER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE EKMA, P.S.- EKMA, DISTRICT-SARAN AT CHAPRA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA, DISTRICT-CHAPRA. 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTRICT-CHAPRA. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners :Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Sr.Adv., Mr.Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State :Mr.Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-XV and Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the State :Mr.Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG-V. ----------- 5 25.08.2010 Petitioner no. 2 has died during the pendency of the writ application and he has been substituted by his legal heirs. However, reference in this order will be in respect of original petitioner no.2. Petitioners of the first case have challenged the order contained in memo no. 4079 dated 2 22.10.2007, as contained in Annexure-1, by which, their promotion to the post of Clerk on a class-III post was cancelled and they were reverted back to the post of Basic Health Worker on a class-IV post. The case of the petitioners is that initially they were appointed as Basic Health Worker and thereafter adopting due procedure they were promoted/appointed as Clerk by order contained in memo no.46 dated 24.12.1985 (Annexure-2) under the orders of the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Saran Division, Chapra. Thereafter, they continued as such and after more than 20 years they have been reverted back to the post of Basic Health Worker. Likewise in the second writ application the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Clerk to the post of Computer by the impugned Annexure-1 contained in memo no. 4068 dated 22.10.2007. This petitioner was also promoted from the post of Computer to the post of Typing Clerk vide memo no. 47 dated 24.12.1985. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners appearing in both the cases submits that after more than 20 years of their functioning as Clerk, they have been demoted to class-IV post at the fag end of their service career. He submits that the petitioner no. 2 of the first case has died and his wife is facing the trauma 3 of demotion of her dead husband now. He submits that though it is mentioned in the orders that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and their representations were considered, but this has been denied by the petitioners by specific pleadings on oath in the writ application. This assertion of the petitioners have not been controverted by producing any document with the counter affidavit to show that, in fact, notices were issued to the petitioners and any reply was received from them which was considered. He also submits that due to passage of time now it is too late for the respondents to hold their promotion as invalid and cancelled the same. He submits that the orders have been passed only in the light of an order of this Court passed in LPA No. 448 of 2005. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in the first case. The order passed in the said LPA shows that the writ applications of the petitioners of the cases were rejected by the learned Single Judge against which the petitioners had moved in LPA. The Division Bench found that, besides the fact that the petitioners, who were working as Basic Health Worker on a technical post, were promoted as Clerk, there were many other irregularities in their promotion. Therefore, Division 4 Bench held that the cancellation of their promotion was just and proper and the order of the learned Single Judge was, therefore, upheld. In this case there is nothing in the order to show that the promotions of the petitioners were found irregular on the ground of any infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondents. The impugned order shows that the respondents blindfolded relied upon the order passed in the said LPA for reversion of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in CWJC No. 14997 of 2007 dated 18.11.2008; CWJC No. 16680 of 2007 dated 12.08.2008 and CWJC No. 14804 of 2007 dated 24.06.2008 wherein the cancellation of promotions of the writ petitioners and the reversion to the post of Computer, passed on the same day the impugned orders in this writ applications are passed, were quashed by this Court on the premises that due to passage of time the petitioners had acquired a right and their promotions had become final and it was not open to the respondents to cancel the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 14804 of 2007 the State and its functionaries had 5 moved in appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 44 of 2009. The Division Bench in that case found that inspite of liberty granted to the State and its functionaries in 1983 they had not taken any step for availing opportunity to proceed afresh by complying with the principles of natural justice, and it was only after 24 years of the posting of the petitioner as Clerk and at fag end of his service career he was being sought to be reverted. Therefore, the Division Bench found the order of learned Single Judge, quashing the order of the reversion, as just and proper and, therefore, the appeal of the State and its functionaries was dismissed. The petitioners, whose cases fell for consideration in LPA no. 448 of 2005, were promoted after 1992. The transaction was recent and it was noticed that audit team had raised an objection to their promotion and, therefore, action was taken against them. While demoting those petitioners the respondents had also found numerous irregularities in the promotions. In the background of those facts, the said orders in LPA no. 448 of 2005 and other analogous appeals were passed dismissing the appeals of the petitioners against orders of dismissal of the writ application. 6 As discussed above, in the present cases, there is nothing on record to show that the promotions of the petitioners were otherwise found to be illegal or irregular. It is also apparent that the petitioners were promoted in 1985 itself by the competent authority. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the cases of these petitioners are distinguishable from the cases of the petitioners whose cases were before the Division Bench in LPA no. 448 of 2005 and this Court further finds that the cases of the petitioners of these cases are more similar to the case of petitioner in CWJC No. 14804 of 2007 whose case was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 44 of 2009. In the result, considering overall aspect of the matter, the impugned orders of the reversion of the petitioners, as contained in Annexure-1 in both the cases, are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners and/or pay their consequential benefits of the promoted posts. The consequential benefits shall be calculated and paid to the petitioners and/or their heirs preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)