IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9991 of 2002 DR.MAHADEO MANDAL (since dead) substituted by his heirs, namely:- (i)Sita Mandal wife of Late Dr. Mahadeo Mandal, aged 58 years, residing at Block C, Flat No.101, Laxmi Kant Apartment, Mohalla Jamal Road, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Patna. (ii)Rakesh Kumar S/O Late Dr. Mahadeo Mandal, aged 37 years, residing at Block C, Flat No.101, Laxmi Kant Apartment, Mohalla Jamal Road, Police Station Kotwali, District & Town Patna. (iii)Nilesh Kumar S/O Late Dr. Mahadeo Mandal, aged 34 years, residing at Block No. C Fat No.101, Laxmi Kant Apartment, Mohalla Jamal Road Police Station Kotwali, Town and District Patna. (iv)Ruma Kumar D/O Late Dr. Mahadeo Mandal, aged 31 years, W/O Shri Rajesh Kumar, Divisional Operation Manager, Tinsukia, Assam. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner- Cum-Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, patna. 4.The Deputy Director, Health Services (Administration), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. ----------- 3 23/6/2010 I.A. No.4668 of 2004. For the reasons mentioned in this application, the prayer made therein is allowed and the persons named in paragraph no.1 are directed to be substituted in place of the sole original writ petitioner who is said to have died on 15.6.2004, during pendency of this writ application, inasmuch as, right to sue to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner would still survive for claiming payment of certain amount in the event this application is allowed. C.W.J.C. NO.9991 of 2002. 2 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the original petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i)issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant Second promotion in 12-1/2 percent senior selection grade with effect from 1988 which has been withheld by Notification No.225 (4) dated 25.6.1998. (ii)issuance of a writ in nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant third promotion in 2-1/2 percent super time senior selection grade which is also withheld by Notification No.408 (4) dated 18.7.2008.” Counsel for the petitioners in this context has submitted that the promotion of the original petitioner either in senior selection grade or super time scale was kept pending on account of the departmental proceeding. It is contended that since the original writ petitioner was exonerated of the charges in the departmental proceeding, as would be apparent from the order dated 31.3.1998, he would be entitled for grant of benefit of promotion in senior selection grade and super time scale at least from the date his juniors were given such promotion. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed but counsel for the State on the basis of records of C.W.J.C. No.8517 of 2002 has proceeded to make submissions that the original writ petitioner was an accused in a criminal case. He has also pointed out that the original writ petitioner was facing allegations with regard to causing loss to the government exchequer and therefore 3 in presence of such materials the substituted petitioners cannot claim promotion of original writ petitioner in the senior selection grade or super time scale as a matter of right. In the opinion of this Court it would be very difficult for this Court to decide such question of fact in absence of a counter affidavit. Nonetheless, as the matter has remained pending before this Court for the last eight years and therefore it would be necessary to direct the respondents to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for grant of his promotion in senior selection grade and super time scale from the date his juniors were given such promotion. If there be any impediment in granting such promotion due to pendency of the departmental proceeding/criminal case, as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Union of India Vs. R.V. Janaki Raman” reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010, the respondents would be duty bound to disclose reasons for denial of such promotion to the original writ petitioner on the post of senior selection grade or super time scale. Such exercise must be completed by the respondents on filing of a representation by the substituted petitioners claiming promotion of the original petitioner within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)