IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8348 of 2005 BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SON OF LATE BRAHMADEO PRASAD RESIDENT OF PATEL COLONY, SANDALPUR ROAD, P.O. MAHENDRRU, P.S. SULTANGANJ, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 30/08/2010 Petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2002. After his retirement he filed the present writ application seeking a direction upon the respondents that he be given promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer from the day he was asked to take current charge in terms of the notification dated 30.6.2000 which is annexure-1 to the writ application. During pendency of the writ application respondents have issued a notification dated 18.09.2006 by virtue of which the petitioner has been given substantive promotion from 1.2.2001 on a notional basis on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held, post retirement of the petitioner. This promotion does not satisfy the petitioner - 2 - because he wants the benefits to be pushed back to 30.06.2000 in terms of annexure-1. Stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has been given substantive promotion from the date he worked in that capacity. Annexure-1 is not an order for substantive promotion but the petitioner along with many other similarly situated persons were given current charge in the exigencies of service, that the order of promotion issued subsequently relates to the time when juniors to the petitioner had been given promotion and there is nothing to show that any of the persons whose name figured in annexure-1 have been given benefit of regular promotion from 30.06.2000. It is also the stand of the respondents that during the period when the petitioner was in service, certain vigilance case was going on against him and during that period of time his case for promotion could not be taken up. Only when the proceeding was dropped after retirement of the petitioner, keeping in mind that other juniors have been given the benefit of promotion, petitioner has been extended the same benefit from 1.2.2001. - 3 - In the given facts and circumstances, there is no occasion for pushing back the date of promotion to 30.6.2000 based on the notification contained in annexure-1 because right of the petitioner does not flow from the said notification but on many other facts and issue including the service record and the date the juniors came to be granted that promotion. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)