IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7698 of 2011 Bikau Sahu SON OF LATE CHARITRA SAHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAULI, P.S. RAHIKA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI, RETIRED SECTION OFFICER, BIHAR SECRETARIAT SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE JOINT SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA. ---------------------------------- 2 11/08/2011 Petitioner worked as a Section Officer with impeccable service record. He, however, retired on the said post on 30th September, 2010. His submission is that even though he had the eligibility for promotion on the post of Under Secretary, this benefit never accrued to him because the respondent State delayed in taking a decision with regard to the claim of promotion of similarly situated persons and the meeting of the departmental promotion committee was held only on 14.1.2011 which was a few months after retirement of the petitioner. In that background the petitioner has lost - 2 - out in the race for promotion as Under Secretary which would have given him status in the society. He says that he is not looking for any other benefit except recognition as a remand for good service to the State. Stand of the State is that such a benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner because he has already retired. By the time the cases of the persons eligible for promotion was compiled and taken up, petitioner had already superannuated and there is no provision to consider the claim of a retired person for grant of promotion. It is not the case that deliberate mischief was played against the petitioner to oust him from the zone of consideration. It is just that the age of the petitioner ran out of time. The Court has gone through the order of promotion which has been notified after the meeting of the departmental promotion committee was held. All this happened after retirement of the petitioner. From the notification, it is apparent that the cases of 133 persons were considered and out of them 83 were found fit for promotion. Obviously, it was a large chunk of the employees whose cases had to be considered. - 3 - Since grant of promotion on such a large scale does take time, therefore, the Court is not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were deliberate delay which hit the prospect of the petitioner for promotion. A retired person cannot claim promotion as a matter of right unless there is something to demonstrate that there was deliberate delay in taking decision for grant of promotion or it was malafide or contrary to the rules. In absence of such facts being established, there is no reason for this Court to give any direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner at this stage. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)