IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.796 of 2007 MAHESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE BANKEY BIHARI SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR KUMAR KOLA POLICE STATION AT PRESENT SAHDAI BUJURG IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT(WATER RESOURCES) GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES/IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES/IRRIGATION, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES(IRRIGATION), ANISABAD, PATNA, BIHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DISTRICT PATNA. 6. THE UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 02. 19.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Junior Engineer in the Water Resources Department with effect from 31.05.1995. He has filed this writ petition on 18.01.2007 asserting that his promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer was wrongly not considered by the department on the basis of erroneous advice rendered by the Bihar Public Service Commission, as has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the notification of the State Government bearing Memo No.3002 dated 31.12.1996, Annexure-3 whereunder petitioner has been censured with direction not to be paid any salary beyond subsistence allowance 2 for the period of suspension. With reference to the said notification dated 31.12.1996, it is submitted that censure has been recorded for the year 1992-93, as such, the notification imposing punishment could not have come in the way of petitioner for consideration of his promotion with retrospective effect. Petitioner having superannuated during the pendency of the proceeding, which culminated in punishment vide notification dated 31.12.1996, Annexure-3. By filing the present writ petition on 18.01.2007 petitioner requested this Court to direct the authorities to consider his case for promotion with retrospective effect i.e. the due date of promotion as the punishment of censure is recorded only for the year 1992-93. 3. I regret not to accept such submission for two reasons, namely, that petitioner has filed this writ petition on 18.01.2007 and the punishment of censure will have effect for three years i.e. until the date of his retirement, which is within three years of the year for which he has been censured. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)