IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18635 of 2009 1. KRISHNA KANT GUPTA S/O LATE BHOLA PRASAD SAH R/O ROAD NO-6, MOH PATEL NAGAR NEAR GANDHI MURTI, P.S.SHASTRI NAGAR , TOWN & DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL , SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES GOVT. OF BIHAR,NEW SECRETARIAT , BAILY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 02 09/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Notwithstanding that a copy of the writ petition served in the office of the Advocate General on 17.12.2009, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Prayer has been made for adjournment for the purpose. However, learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions and is in a position to make submissions upon the same. This Court is not persuaded to grant any latitude to the State for its laches is not filing the counter affidavit in view of the nature of the order being passed. The petitioner was served with a charge- sheet dated 20.4.2005. It is not in controversy that the departmental proceedings are pending till date. Placing strong reliance on a Government resolution dated 11.4.2002, providing that where a departmental 2 proceeding has remained pending in excess of two years, his case may be considered for ad-hoc promotion based on his service records. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner has not been considered for ad-hoc promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, when his juniors have been so promoted. Learned counsel for the State submitted on instructions that the petitioner has been considered for ad-hoc promotion on 30.11.2009, and the recommendation has been kept in sealed cover to be considered after expiry of two years or conclusion of the departmental proceedings, whichever be earlier. The respondents appear to be acting contrary to their own resolution dated 11.9.2002. The resolution provides that the case of a person for promotion facing departmental proceedings had to be considered for ad-hoc promotion if the proceedings have remained pending for over two years and it would not be against public interest to grant such ad-hoc promotion, it should be considered on basis of his past service records. The stand of the State that the petitioner shall become eligible to be considered for ad- hoc promotion two years after 30.11.2009 appears to 3 be devoid of any substance or logic and contrary to their own circular. The petitioner became entitled to be considered for ad-hoc promotion on 21.4.2007. If any of his juniors have been promoted after that date, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for ad-hoc promotion from the date that his juniors have been promoted. The writ application is disposed off in the aforesaid terms with directions to the respondents to consider his case for ad-hoc promotion in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)