IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.120 of 2010 1. Akhilesh Giri S/O Late Ram Narayan Giri, R/O Vill Bhelawar, Post-Tej Bigha, P.S-Kako, Distt- Jehanabd, Presently Posted As Peon At District Programme Office, Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Null Through Secretary, Department Of Welfare, Govt.Of Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department Govt. Of Bihar,Patna 3. The Director, Social Welfare, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Patna Division, Bihar, Patna 5. The Director Integrated Child Development Projects (I.C.D.S) Bihar, Patna 3/ 19/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was promoted from a class-4 post to a class-3 post on 30.6.1994. Barely days later the promotion was stayed on 7.10.1994 for reasons of irregularity. After giving a show cause notice it was formally cancelled on 30.10.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that the order dated 30.10.1996 was not sustainable as ground-1 was not applicable to him. He did not belong to the Department of Social Welfare, but to the I.C.D.S. who could have been lawfully promoted. Reliance is next placed on certain file notings dated 15.4.2005 that by an executive decision there was provision for promotion from class-4 post to 2 class-3 post through a committee to be constituted. The promotion orders of the petitioner dated 30.6.1994 itself states that it was being made in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee. Clause-3 refers to procedural irregularities which do not make the promotion illegal. Thereafter the matter has been engaging the attention of the respondents till as recently as 5/5/2007, but they are declining to take a final decision in the matter. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the grounds of delay to submit that in effect the petitioner seeks to challenge an order of reversion dated 30.10.1996 in the year 2010 and which has attained finality as the petitioner never questioned the same. He submits that the promotion being contrary to law was stayed barely 3 months later. The respondents are in the process of formulation of procedures for constitution of a class-4 cadre of employees whereafter on basis of seniority they shall be considered for promotion to class-3. The order of promotion dated 30.6.1994, the stay order dated 7.10.1994 and the order dated 30.10.1996 have all been perused. Suffice it to say that the Court is prima facie of the opinion that had the petitioner approached the Court in 1996, the 3 controversy may have been viewed by the Court very differently than today. Whatever may have been happening in the office of the respondents cannot furnish a cause of action to the petitioner when his cause of action fructified and attained finality on 10.10.1996 which he accepted. The petitioner appears to have been working since long on a class-4 post. The respondents in no uncertain terms have stated that they do realize the need to provide promotional avenues. In fact as held in (2008) 5 SCC 100 (Food Corporation of India vs. Parashotam Das Bansal) it is the constitutional obligation of the respondents to provide promotional avenues to prevent stagnation and to keep the morale of its employees high as also provide them opportunities for economic improvement in accordance with the directive principles of the State policy. The Court therefore issues mandamus to frame such promotional policy for class-4 employees and then consider the petitioner also in accordance with law all within a maximum period of 6 months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)