IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15733 of 2001 RAJENDRA PASWAN, son of Late Ramcharan Paswan, resident of village Dharampur, P. S. Hathdah, District- Patna, at present posted as Assistant Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme, Begusarai. …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bisheshwarai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bisheshwarai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ….Respondents ----------- 6. 06.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Initially this writ application was filed for the following reliefs;- “(1) That this is an application, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ/order, commanding the respondents to give the petitioner’s promotion in the rank of Executive Engineer from a date prior to the date his juniors in the rank of Assistant Engineer have been given promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer and, further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to give all consequential benefits including further promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer from the date the promotion is given to the petitioner in the rank of Executive Engineer.” Subsequently, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has been given promotion by order dated 1.11.2006 which is only prospective in nature. Counsel for the petitioner 2 therefore would submit that though his seniority position and gradation list is 1964 and the persons junior to him in the category of scheduled castes at Serial no. 2083- Bashisht Narayan, 2250- Arun Kumar Mahto, 2338- Navin Kumar, 2354- Ramawadh Kumar, 2387- Lakshmi Narayan Paswan, 2371 –Indrajeet Kumar and 2372- Anirudh Kumar were given such promotion with effect from 27.8.1996, no justifiable reason can be there for depriving the petitioner at serial no. 1964 from such promotion for a period of 10 years and therefore the date given in the order of promotion dated 1.11.2006 should be at least be made retrospective from the date his aforesaid juniors were given such promotion i.e. 27.8.1996. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand states that there was no vacancy on which the petitioner could have been promoted in the year 1996. Apparently, this explanation of the counsel for the State seems to be contrary to the materials on record, especially the notification of promotion dated 27.8.1996 3 wherein several persons junior to the petitioner were given promotion on the post of executive engineer. In any event, now when the petitioner has already been given promotion on 1.11.2006 even this aspect of the matter can be definitely looked into by the Secretary of the Road Construction Department who would personally look into the matter and pass a reasoned order if the petitioner would file a representation annexing all the necessary details and documents along with a copy of this order. Prima-facie, this Court is also of considered view that the petitioner’s case needs reconsideration because in the year 1993-96 when the petitioner was not notified for promotion he had already stood exonerated of some charge and therefore unless there be some fresh charge or some valid reason, the petitioner’s promotion had to be notified on 27.8.1996 in view of the earlier recommendation of the departmental promotion committee. This court, however, would not give any conclusive finding as 4 this aspect has not been dealt in clear terms in the counter affidavit. That being so, this Court would direct the Secretary, Road Construction Department to decide the claim of the petitioner from grant of promotion with effect from 27.8.1996 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner’s claim is accepted, he would be extended all the benefits which his juniors were extended and if his claim for promotion from retrospective effect is rejected, respondents will be required to give reasons for the same. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)