IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7940 of 2003 MD. NASIM AKHTAR ANSARI, son of Md. Hafizuddin Ansari, Presently posted as Junior Engineer, Sahabad Road Division, Arrah, District Arrah… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Additional Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 04.01.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State of Bihar and its official respondents no. 2 to 5. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to issue necessary notification giving effect to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 10.5.2001, so far it relates to the petitioner whereby and whereunder the Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the post meant for promotin of the Junior Engineer From A.M.I.E. Quota. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date since when many junior Engineers under the 2 A.M.I.E. quota and junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer without giving any consideration to the case of the petitioner for such promotion. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities for grant of promotion to the petitioner with retrospective date, i.e. the date since his juniors have been granted promotion with all consequences monetary benefits for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled on the basis of his promotion with retrospective date.” Mr. S. B. K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as a matter of fact, the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 10.5.2001 while considering the cases of promotion of Junior Engineers in the Road Construction Department had also found the petitioner fit for promotion and recommended for the same but such recommendation was hedged with certain conditions namely clearance report of Cabinet Vigilance Committee as also free from any allegation pertaining to CAG report, CBI enquiry. Mr. Mangalam has further relied upon a communication of Cabinet Vigilance Department dated 28.11.2001 to contend that at least as 3 on that date the Cabinet Vigilance Department had found no prima facie allegation pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this context has also submitted that there is no CBI enquiry pending against the petitioner pertaining to Bitumen Scam and in fact there seems to be no justified reason for not promoting the petitioner specially when Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting had found the petitioner fit for promotion even with certain conditions which are in favour of petitioner. Had there been a counter affidavit filed by the respondents or the learned counsel for the State could apprise this court the reasons on which the petitioner had been deprived said promotion, this court could have effectively decided the issue. In complete absence of story of other side it would not be prudent to make any final pronouncement with the aforementioned grievance of the petitioner. The matter however cannot be allowed to linger for an indefinite period specially when this writ application having been filed on 8.8.2003 has 4 remained pending before this Court itself for the period over six years. Considering all these aspects, this Court would direct the Secretary of Road Construction Department to examine and decide as to why the petitioner’s promotion despite recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee in its favour has not been notified. In order to expedite the matter this court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation wherein the petitioner should disclose all the relevant facts and if necessary also support them with documentary evidence. The Secretary, Road Construction Department will thereafter examine the same and pass a reasoned order. It goes without saying that in case there was no allegation pending before the Cabinet Vigilance Department or before the Accountant General or before CBI as on the way juniors to the petitioner were promoted, the petitioner also shall be given the same benefit of promotion and consequential payment of salary/emoluments of the post of Assistant Engineer. If the respondents 5 however have any reservation in notifying the promotion of the petitioner for any valid reason they would be required to record the same while disposing of the representation of the petitioner. Such exercise must be completed within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation along with a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)