IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4980 of 2006 SHIV LAL SAH, son of Srfi Rajgir Sah, resident of Shanti Niwas, West Jain Mahabir Colony (Shiv Shakti Nagar), P S – Sultanganj, Patna-6. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. K B Verma. For the Accountant General : Mr. Sanjay Kumar ------- 02. 3.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. This is a second visit of the petitioner when a speaking order in terms of the earlier direction of the High Court has come to be passed. The speaking order is dated 28th of February, 2006 and has been annexed as Annexure-1. Claim of the petitioner is that since he was made to officiate on the post of Executive Engineer for a while before he superannuated, his case should have been considered for substantive promotion as posts were available at the relevant time but due to the fault of the department or decision making process petitioner was denied the benefit as he superannuated in the meanwhile. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the inaction of the respondents at an appropriate time. The entire career graph of the petitioner has been dealt with in the impugned order contained in Anneuxre-1. The background of the circumstances under which the delay in consideration for promotion of the case of the petitioner along with similarly situated 2 persons has already been indicated. It clearly states that by the time the exercise was completed, petitioner had retired. Since he had retired there was no occasion to consider his case or claim for promotion. A person having superannuated has no right to claim promotion especially when no senior or junior to the petitioner came to be promoted on the said post, even post retirement. The reasoning given in the impugned order cannot be termed to be arbitrary or malafide since it states the actual state of affairs why the petitioner could not be granted promotion on the substantive post. The order does not require any interference. The respondent authorities have however recommended for payment of 20 per cent extra salary of the basic pay under Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code since he had shouldered higher responsibility. This was subject to approval by the Finance Department. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to certify whether this benefit has accrued to him. If no decision has been taken, then decision ought to be taken now and communicated to the petitioner. If it has already been taken no exercise is required to be done. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that he is not satisfied with the grant of benefit under Rule 103 since he had officiated in a substantive capacity on the post of Executive Engineer. He is entitled to salary of that post and the corresponding pension etc. fixed on that pay scale. The Court fails to understand the basis for making such a claim. The Court even otherwise is not willing to expand the prayer or 3 the relief in this regard taking into consideration that Annexure-1 has come to be passed on the issued raised by the petitioner which related to his claim for promotion. If the petitioner thinks that he has a case to claim such a relief, he may do so. The writ application is dismissed. Annexure-1 is upheld. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)