IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1146 of 1998 Shailendra Narain Sinha S/O late Laxmi Narayan Sinha, resident of A/15 D-1, Sector, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020. --- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar , 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhavan, Patna, 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ----- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 5 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Prayer in the writ petition is for setting aside the order contained in memo no. 805 dated 19.2.1997 by which the petitioner has been granted promotion in the junior selection grade with effect from 11.3.1992 instead of 1.11.1988, the date from which his juniors were given such promotion. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are noted hereinbelow. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service on the post of Agriculture Inspector by office order no. 9173 dated 18.5.1957. Thereafter, he was inducted in the grade of 2 Bihar Agriculture Service by Government resolution dated 3.5.1968 in the grade of class-II (Junior) category- I. The petitioner was thereafter again promoted on ad-hoc basis by the competent authority from the grade of class-II (Junior) to class –II (Senior) in the cadre of Bihar Agriculture Service against the regular vacant post vide Government resolution no. 17384 dated 03.11.1976 which was subject to the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioner joined his promoted post and was also given all the benefits of the promotional post including the higher scale of Class II(Senior) with effect from his joining on 3.11.1976. In the meantime in March, 1978 the State Government had taken a decision to merge the class II(Junior) category I of Bihar Agriculture Service into the class II Senior Category I by its resolution No. 5167 dated 31.3.1978 and the Officers named in the Government resolution were declared officers of Class II (Senior) category with effect from 1.1.1977 and 1.1.1978 respectively. Thus, the petitioner was inducted in the class II(Senior) with effect from 3.11.1976, but unfortunately it took time for the recommendation to come from Bihar 3 Public Service Commission which were made on 30.5.1992 and thereafter, the State Government vide its notification dated 16.12.1992 regularized the promotion of the petitioner along with others in class II (Senior) with effect from the original and actual date of promotion i.e., 3.11.1976 when ad-hoc promotion in the cadre was granted. But dispute arose when juniors were given benefit of the merger and the petitioner along with others were not granted the same. This resulted in the petitioner having to come before this Court earlier in CWJC No. 5993/94, which was disposed off by order dated 07-08-1995 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted and all consequential benefits were also to be granted. The order itself states that juniors have been granted promotion, vide Annexure-6 of the writ petition, which is notification dated 30.5.1992 and further there is a categorical finding that the persons mentioned in the notification were junior to the petitioner. The petitioner, due to non-compliance of the said 4 order, had moved this Court again in M.J.C. No. 905/96 which was rejected on 24.6.1997 observing that the petitioner had been granted promotion with effect from 30.5.1992 which is also the date of Annexure-6 of the writ petition by which the persons named therein , who were junior to the petitioner, had been granted such promotion. In the meantime notification dated 30.5.1992 with respect to the other persons was modified by notification dated 20.1.1993 which was Annexure-3/A of the contempt petition, by which the effective date of promotion to those persons had been shifted back to 1.11.1988 and 1.2.1989. However, the contempt petition was rejected since the Court felt that the direction in the writ petition was to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the light of Annexure-6, which is notification dated 30.5.1992 and that having been done no contempt could be made out. However, it was observed that the petitioner may move in appropriate proceeding against the order dated 19.2.1997 by which he had been granted such promotion with effect from 30.5. 1992 and accordingly, the instant writ petition came to be filed. The petitioner has since superannuated on 5 31.1.1994. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3 which shows a final graduation list as has been published on 06.2.1997 in which the petitioner is shown to be junior to the persons whose names figured in Annexure-6. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for shifting his date of promotion to 1988 is not tenable, as per the stand of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired in the year 1994 and without any knowledge to him the tentative gradation list was published in the year 1996 and also finalised in the year 1997 behind the back of the petitioner and thus he had no opportunity to file any objection with regard to the said gradation lists. From the gradation list it is pointed out that the same is absurd and erroneous inasmuch as the persons who have been appointed in 1974 as well as the petitioner , who was appointed in the year 1976 have been shown junior to those appointed in the year 1977. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that there is a categorical finding of the Court earlier, in its order dated 7.8.1995 in CWJC No. 5993/1994 that the persons named in the Annexure-6 i.e., 6 the notification dated 30.5.1992 were junior to the petitioner and on that basis the respondents themselves have granted promotion to the petitioner with effect from 13.5.1992. Now it is not within their competence to take a stand that they shall not give the benefit, which was granted to the persons whose name figured in order dated 30.5.1992 shifting the effective date of their promotion to the year 1988-89, to the petitioner also. Since the respondents have accepted the position that the petitioner was also entitled to benefit as was available to the persons named in Annexure-6 of the writ petition from that very date i.e., 30.5.1992, which was also notified by order dated 19.2.1997, this Court holds that the respondents are bound to extend the same benefit which was given to the other persons by notification dated 20.1.1993. For the reasons aforesaid the memo no. 805 dated 19.2.1997 as far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the same benefits as has been given to the persons named in Annexure-6 in CWJC No. 5993/94 and his date of effective promotion shall also to be shifted as has been done in their case. 7 The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. The order is further clarified that in case of further shifting of the effective date of promotion of persons named in Annexure-6 which as soon as been shifted with effective from 1.4.1981, the same benefit shall be granted to the petitioner also. Consequent upon this, the petitioner shall also be entitled to refixation of his retiral benefits with effect from 24.10.1994 and also to any other benefits which the persons whose name figures in the notification dated 30.5.1992 have been given. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. In view of the fact that the petitioner has superannuated in 1994 itself, let the exercise, as directed by this order, be completed within six months from the date of receipt /production of this order upon respondent no.2. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)