IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13648 of 2003 1. RAM PRASAD, Son of Sri Raja Ram, resident of Village and Post Office- Sona Gopalpur, Police Station:- Gaurichak, District- Patan at present posted as Assistant Controller, Weights and Measure, Rohtas(Sasaram) 2. Ram Nairanjan Kumar, Son of Sri Shiv Shankar Prasad, resident of Village and Post Office- Agapur, Police Station- Mansoorchak, District- Begusarai, presently posted as Assistant Controller, Weights and Measure, Saharsa 3. Md. Raza Karim, Son of late Md. Idrish, resident of – G/92, Peoples (Cooperative Coloney, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 at present posted as Assistant Controller, Weights and Measure, Madhubani 4. Ravindra Nath, Son of Late Sidheshwar Nath resident of Maharaj Hata, Post Office and Police Station- Nawada Ara, District- Bhojpur at present posted as Assistant Controller, Weights and Measure, Motihari (East Champaran) ------------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. ---------------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Adv. Mr. Ramjee Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. S. Rahman, AC to SC-17 ----------------- 3. 8.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were promoted from the post of Inspector to Assistant Controller, Weights and Measures against the 50% quota meant for promotional posts. They are aggrieved by the date from which promotion has been granted and seek correction of the same. They came earlier to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7661 of 1997, which was followed by a contempt application when they were being not considered for promotion. This Court on 3.12.1998, noticed 2 that no reason had been assigned in the counter affidavit for not making any promotion and neither the State counsel was in a position to give any satisfactory explanation except for stating that persons like the petitioners seem to have been overlooked while promotions were earlier made. This Court, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioners and eligible candidates for promotion in accordance with law. The petitioners were then granted promotion by a notification dated 9.12.2002, with effect from the date that they assume charge of their promotional posts. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It states that the promotions have been given in pursuance of the orders of this Court effective from the date of taking charge under a Finance Department circular dated 4.4.1985. That their claim for shifting the date of promotion from the date of eligibility was not tenable. Certain other situated persons like the petitioners had been granted retrospective benefits of promotion but that was in compliance of the order of this Court. The right to be considered for promotion under Article 14 of the Constitution of India necessarily entails the right to be considered in time and from the due date. The denial of consideration in time and from the legitimate date itself amounts to arbitrariness. It is manifest that the respondents faulted in timely consideration of the case of the petitioners. They wake up to the compulsive need for the same when this Court so directed. They 3 have wronged the petitioners by a delayed consideration. Can they be allowed to take advantage of their own delay? The counter affidavit does not explain this delay at all but seeks to suggest that the promotion was given as a matter of grace because this Court directed them to do so. As if, they were not inclined to do so, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Constitution of India , the defence of the respondents that while others may have been given retrospective promotion under orders of the Court was sufficient to distinguish the petitioners appear completely untenable. The respondents are directed to consider the shifting of the date of promotion from the date they became eligible under the rules to be considered for promotion against the 50 % quota reserved for promotee at least from the date that the juniors came to be promoted. The petitioners are already stated to have represented for the purpose vide Annexure-14. Let appropriate orders be passed on their claim shifting back the date of promotion as discussed above within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to add in view of the judgment of this Court in 2005(3) PLJR 723, relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, they shall be entitled to consequential monetary benefits notionally from the date of promotion. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)