The Union Of India v. Ramadhar Tiwari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21188 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

The Union Of India Through Director General, Department of Post New Delhi- 110001.

2.

Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, G.P.O. Complex, Patna- 800001. 3.

The Director of Accounts (Postal) GPO Campus, Patna- 800001. 4.

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Champaran Postal Division, Motihari845401. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Ramadhar Tiwari Son of Late Sitaram Tiwari, Resident of VillageChakaniya, P.O.- Bediwan Madhuwan, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran, Motihari.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sinha, CGC For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr.Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 08-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties On 18.07.2022, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna is hereby directed to file a detailed affidavit as to vacancy of MTS was available in the year 2003 and the respondent was the only person who was to be appointed. However, appointment was delayed/promotion was delayed due to administrative difficulties, if any. The same shall be

2/4 filed with material information if there is a delay in filling up of vacancy in the year 2003 or not? It was beyond the control of the respondent in respect of non-filling up of the MTS cadre by means of promotion/appointment in respect of vacancy accrued in the year 2003 and the fact that respondent was at serial no.

waiting for promotion/appointment to MTS cadre.

On account of delay on the part of the postal authorities appointment/promotion of the respondent was deferred from 2003 to 2006 and all these issues affidavit must clarify.

Relist this matter on 01.08.2022 for the aforesaid issues.

At this juncture, it is necessary to the petitioner-department to furnish method of recruitment to the post for which the respondent was promoted/appointed."

Today, learned counsel for the appellant filed supplementary affidavit. Para 7 of the supplementary affidavit reads as under:- "That it is further stated that the information in regarding the Hon'ble Patna High Court order dated 18.07.2022 passed in the CWJC No.21188/2018 filed by the UOI & Ors.

vs. Ramadhar Tiwari are as follows:- (i). Yes, one vacancy of MTS available in the year 2003 and the respondent being senior most in the gradation list was the only person to be appointed.

3/4 (ii). The promotion of the respondent was delayed due to administrative difficulties i.e. approval of the vacancy by the Postal Directorate, New Delhi.

(iii) That non filing up of the vacancy in the MTS Cadre accrued in the year 2003 by means of promotion / appointment was beyond the control of the petitioner Department.

(iv) That as such no objection was raised by the respondent while accepting & amp; joining the promotional Post and as such his claim is not acceptable and allowable at this stage."

The aforesaid statement is breft of reasons and merely stating administrative difficulties to postpone the appointment of the respondent. Sufficient cause has not been shown as to why there was a delay of three years which has resulted in denial of service benefits to the respondent. In identical matter in CWJC No. 18525 of 2013 decided on 15.05.2015, this Court has taken note of occurrence of vacancy and filling up of vacancy belatedly and dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the Union of India. Recently, we have taken a decision in CWJC No. 25608 of 2019 on 03.08.2022.

4/4 In the light of the aforesaid two decisions the appellantUnion of India has not made out case. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Rajiv Roy, J) Vikash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date N/A