IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5881 of 1997 SHIVPOOJAN BAITHA, son of late Morha Baitha, resident of Adarash Colony, P S. Shastrinagar, District- Patna, Director Seed Certification Agency, Bihar, Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through the Secretary. … Respondents. ----------- 4. 16.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Bihar Public Service Commission as also learned counsel for the State. In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the date of grant of his super time scale and to that extent he has complained that the date 27.9.1987 should have been the date of grant of super time scale in place of 14.1.1997 as has been done by the respondent by issuing the order dated 14.1.1997 as contained in Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that when the petitioner was given senior selection grade in Bihar Agriculture Service Category -1 w.e.f. 27.9.1984 and his junior, Madan Bihari 2 Sharan was given such promotion in senior selection grade w.e.f. 1.4.1986 and his (Madan Bihari Sharan) being given super time scale w.e.f. 1.4.1989 immediately on completion of period of Kalawadi of three years and the petitioner being pushed to the date of 14.1.1997 is wholly illogical. In this regard, he has also submitted that when the petitioner and Dayanand Bhagat had entered in service on the same date and in fact had earned their senior selection grade on the same date, the decision of the State Government granting super time scale to Dayanand Bhagat w.e.f. 10.9.1988 and the petitioner being given such super time scale only w.e.f 14.1.1997 is wholly illogical. As usual, there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents which could have clarified the mist. The plea of the respondent is that the Commission had only examined the eligibility and sent its recommendation whether fit or unfit for grant of time bound promotion and it did not fix any date. In the considered opinion of this Court, the concept of junior selection grade, senior selection 3 grade and super time scale have been emerged on the basis of Resolution of Finance Department dated 30.12.1980 prescribing 20 %, 12 ½ % and 2 ½% of post of cadre to be filled up from among the eligible persons on the basis of seniority or seniority-cum- merit. No one in Basic Scale can be pushed out, if there was a vacancy in the higher post of Junior selection grade, senior selection grade and super time scale. Here in this case, even persons junior to the petitioner including one Sri Madan Bihari Sharan were given promotion in Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1.4.1986 and had also been given promotion in super time scale w.e.f. 1.4.1989 as would be evident from order dated 12.3.1997 but the petitioner who had been promoted in Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 27.9.1984 has been given promotion in such super time scale by way of regular promotion only w.e.f. 14.1.1997. In the opinion of this Court, there seems to be sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that at one point of time the authorities themselves were of the view that the 4 petitioner’s date of promotion in super time scale should have been modified w.e.f 27.9.1987 but the same was not agreed by the departmental secretary and the Ministry on the plea that the matter was pending in the Apex Court. This Court is not aware as to what was pending in the Apex Court which precluded the Government in not giving promotion to the petitioner in super time scale w.e.f. his due date and though his juniors including Madan Bihari Sharan was given such promotion in super time scale w.e.f an early date i.e. 1.4.1989. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Agriculture Production Commissioner to examine himself the grievance of the petitioner and if it is found that any person including Madan Bihari Sharan being junior to the petitioner was given such super time scale w.e.f. an early date i.e. 1.4.1989 or even earlier the petitioner’s promotion in super time scale shall also be granted from the date his juniors were given such promotion. In undertaking such a exercise, the respondents however will be absolutely justified in looking the aspects namely, availability of 5 post, completion of period of Kalawadi and the recommendation made by the Commission but even if it may lead to cancellation of promotion of a junior for making the petitioner eligible for grant of promotion in super time scale, the respondents will have to complete this unpleasant task by allowing the junior to the petitioner to suffer in the matter of fixation of date of promotion on the super time scale of pay. This Court, however, would make it clear that before such decision is taken by the Agriculture Production Commissioner, he must issue notice to the concerned junior person who may be adversely affected on account of giving retrospective promotion to the petitioner in the super time scale from 27.9.1987 or any other date. Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is granted super time scale by reverting the date 14.1.1997 to an earlier date, he will also be entitled to receive monetary benefit as also refixation of his retirement benefit as allowed in the 6 case of other persons. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. Kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)