IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10815 of 2005 ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, son of Sri Tooka Singh, resident of Sector- 6H, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna at present posted as Senior Project Engineer, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam, Saharsa…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 12.01.2010 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of writ/direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner of promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer or equivalent post from the date, junior to the petitioner have been promoted on the said post and after consideration grant promotion to the petitioner from the date, his juniors had been promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer of Equivalent post with all consequential benefits of service and to pass other order.” As with regard to aforementioned prayer, Mr. Singh would submit that the department had collected materials in course of placing the matter for promotion and the Cabinet Vigilance had reported no matter to 2 be pending against the petitioner. He further submits that despite such a clear vigilance report, the respondents by order dated 2.12.2004 and 7.1.2005 had gone to make juniors to the petitioner entitled for working in higher post of Superintending Engineer by way of current charge arrangement of course in their own pay-scale of Executive Engineer, a post also held by the petitioner. According to Mr. Singh, such orders dated 2.12.2004 and 7.1.2005 would amount to taking away the vested right of the petitioner to work against higher post. Counsel for the State on the other hand having filed counter-affidavit has taken a contrary stand in the light of statement made in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- “ 7. That so far as the statements made in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 to the writ application are concerned it is denied by the respondent authorities because promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer has not been given to persons junior to the petitioner. However, the Department Establishment Committee on dated 26-10-04 considered the name of the petitioner along with other Executive Engineer for making working arrangement for the Incharge of duties of Superintending Engineer in addition 3 to their own duties. The D.F.C. did not find the petitioner fit for holding the higher post of Superintending Engineer in the above working arrangement due to certain charges leveled against the petitioner regarding execution of work of Budhist Circuit Project. That in continuation of the above said paragraph, respondent authorities further submit that a departmental proceeding has been ordered to be conducted by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner and pursuing the same 15 days time has been given to the petitioner for filing show cause thereafter resolution regarding Departmental Proceeding will be issued.” In the opinion of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner for being promoted cannot be allowed for two reasons. Firstly, no person junior to the petitioner has been given substantive promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer and secondly current charge arrangement made by the respondents by even assigning the duty of post of Superintending Engineer to some of the alleged juniors to the petitioner being not a promotion would not clothe the petitioner any right specially when respondents have also explained that the petitioner was under zone of enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage would submit that even if no one junior 4 to the petitioner has been given substantive promotion, the very fact that some of the juniors to the petitioner were asked to work in the own pay-scale against higher post of Superintending Engineer would amount to loss of status for the petitioner and the petitioner would be forced to work under such juniors. It is well settled that current charge arrangement made against higher post is not a substantive promotion and when the authorities had found certain serious allegations to be pending against the petitioner they had all the reasons not to assign the duty of higher post which by way of current charge arrangement was assigned to some of his juniors. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under the Departmental proceedings and his service also came to an end during the pendency of the departmental proceeding. Therefore, today unless the petitioner gets exonerated in the departmental proceeding from all the charges framed against him, he cannot claim at least substantive promotion by way of right. As with regard to temporary loss of status and 5 the plea of the petitioner that on the date when juniors to the petitioner were considered for assigning the higher responsibility by way of current charge arrangement there was no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner, this court would only hold that it is only in respect of regular promotion that the petitioner can claim his suppression by juniors. If on cogent materials the petitioner was denied current charge arrangement, which is definitely not a promotion and infact only discharging duty of higher post in one's own pay scale, no error can be found in the same. That apart, if the respondents had the material before them according to which the petitioner was found involved in a charge of corruption prima facie known to them, they were not obliged to again post and assign the petitioner on higher post at least till that enquiry could have come to an end. Be that as it may, now the petitioner has already retired during the pendency of the pendency of departmental enquiry, and as such his promotion would be 6 governed by the settled principle that if the petitioner would be fully exonerated of charges in departmental proceeding and any junior to him in the meantime was given promotion till the retirement of the petitioner and he would also be entitled for promotion from that date on which his juniors were given such regular promotion. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)