IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6847 of 1997 BALMIKI KESHRI, son of Sri Lakshmi Keshri, resident of village Sikandra, P.S. Sikandra, District Jamui at present posted as Manager (Civil) Tanakpur Hydro Electric Project, Banbassa, District Udham Singh Nagar, U.P. … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Deptt. of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Deptt. of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna … Respondents ----------- 4. 18.5.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner has made a prayer for grant of paper promotion as also consequential monetary benefit for the post of Associate Professor in view of the Government Resolution dated 25.8.1994 as also for differential arrear of salary for the period 23.9.1980 to 29.6.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in service of the State of Bihar for the period 20.12.1965 to 29.6.1986, whereafter he had resigned from the service of the State of Bihar and as such, any benefit which has been given to the similarly situated persons 2 by giving them promotion with retrospective effect vide notification dated 25.8.1994 (Annexure 5) ought to have been also given to the petitioner. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been explained that the petitioner was not entitled for being given such promotion, inasmuch as he had ceased to be in service of the State of Bihar after 29.6.1986, whereas the benefit of personal promotion was given to the working teachers of Polytechnic in the year 1994 pursuant to the decision taken in the year 1990 for giving personal promotion by adopting UGC norms. In the considered opinion of this Court the respondents have to consider the individual case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the policy of personal promotion. Such copy of the Government decision is not on record and only consequential orders have been placed which go to show that the Government had adopted UGC pay scale with effect from 1.1.1973 and on 28.2.1989 it had also taken a decision to make payment of salary in the UGC pay scale 3 to such of the teachers of the Government Polytechnic and Mining Institutions who had been appointed prior to 5.1.1979. The State Government communication dated 16.2.1990 to the Accountant General refers to revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 but the payment of actual financial benefit only from August, 1989. It has to be also taken note of the fact that on 20.1.1990 the State Government had separately decided to grant personal promotion to the working teachers of the Government Polytechnic from the post of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor in continuation of his earlier decision dated 7.8.1985 and 8.9.1987. By the said Government decision dated 20.1.1990 the personal promotion was however to be given with effect from 23rd September, 1980. It appears that on account of the aforementioned decision the Government in the Science and Technology Department had also given personal promotion (time bound promotion) to as many as 93 persons who were continuing in service as on 25.8.1994 but the same benefit was not given to the 4 petitioner primarily because he was not found to be continuing in Government service on the date of issuance of the notification dated 25.8.1994. In the counter affidavit nothing has been said about denial of personal promotion to the petitioner and as noted above, the only reason given therein for the same is that since the petitioner had initially gone on deputation by retaining his lien in the Science and Technology Department on the post of Assistant professor and had joined the services of N.H.P.C. and subsequently had resigned from the Government service on 29.6.1986 which led to termination of his lien by the Government of Bihar, the petitioner could not be granted the personal promotion alongwith others. In such a situation, this Court would deem it expedient in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his personal promotion in terms of the Government policy and if it is found that the petitioner had also fulfilled the 5 requirement of such personal promotion which could have led to his promotion as well by including him in the notification dated 25.8.1994 alongwith 93 others, the order relating to his grant of personal promotion shall be issued giving him also effective date of such personal promotion. This Court however must make it clear that though the petitioner may be entitled for payment of pension in view of the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 6849/1997 disposed of on 12.10.1998 by counting his services from 20.12.1965, when the issue of his personal promotion will be examined, the petitioner’s appointment will have to be again tested in the light of the criteria laid down in Personal Promotion Scheme, inasmuch as if the earlier services rendered were to be counted for payment of pension by way of continuity in service or qualifying service before his being regularized by the Commission, that will not mean that the petitioner’s effective date of personal promotion will also be the same by computing his service from 20.12.1985. The Personal Promotion Scheme envisages the 6 concept of substantive appointment on the lower post to be one of the main criteria for grant of such promotion and therefore, the respondents will have to specifically address themselves on this issue as to from which date the services of the petitioner has to be computed for completing 13 years of service for being given personal promotion on the post of Associate professor. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service and has been paid his retirement benefit and the Government resolution had contemplated payment of actual cash component of enhanced salary only with effect from 1.2.1989 the petitioner’s personal promotion if allowed may only add to his enhancement of pensionary amount, inasmuch as even if his salary will have to be revised with effect from 1.1.1986 as contemplated in Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit he would get no benefit of payment of enhanced salary from 1.1.1986 to 29.6.1986. It is made clear that since the petitioner himself had made prayer for paper promotion he will not be entitled 7 for any other monetary benefit except revision of his pension by virtue of grant of personal promotion and consequential refixation of his last pay. The respondents, therefore, should decide the claim of personal promotion of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and the consequential revision in pension and other retirement benefit, if any, may also be made within next three months. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/