IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11910 of 2002 BAIJNATH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 06.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim in this writ application falls in two categories. “A” for grant of monetary benefits of the first time bound promotion, and “B”, monetary benefits of the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Excise from the date of promotion and not from the date of notification of the promotion. So far as monetary dues of the time bound promotion are concerned, the respondents in paragraph-5 of their counter affidavit have admitted the same and have also acknowledged having taken steps for its payment. This Court, therefore, holds that the petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits of the time bound promotion. Insofar as, the arrears of salary for the promotional post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Excise is concerned, the petitioner came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 3992 of 1998. The order of this Court dated 15.2.1999 notices from the counter affidavit of the State that the only reason for delay in promotion was lack of 2 meeting of the departmental promotion committee. Directions were issued for convening the meeting of the departmental promotion committee, whereafter promotion has been ordered with effect from 30.6.1994 by order dated 14.5.1999. The order of promotion however, states that the monetary benefit shall be payable from the date of joining on the promotional post. The counter affidavit of the respondents seeks to rely on a Government Circular dated 4.4.1985 to urge that in case, where a person was denied promotion on account of pendency of any proceedings or otherwise against him or in case of any proceedings or charges against him and a junior was promoted in the mean time, the senior promoted subsequently shall not be entitled to the benefits. This Court holds both from the stand of the respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 3992 of 1998 and the counter affidavit in the present case that such is not the situation with the petitioner and the Circular, therefore, has no application. From the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the respondents essentially seek to take advantage of their lapses in non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion in time. He had to come to this Court for an order in what was otherwise a routine administrative matter requiring no adjudication on legal 3 issues by a Court of law. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to the full monetary benefits of the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Excise from 30.6.1994 “wrongly mentioned as 30.6.1984 in the order dated 14.5.1999”, less what has already been paid to him. Let the same be done within a maximum period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)