IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.56 of 2004 SRI BIPIN BIHARI LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 09/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the Department of Mines. The claim in this application is to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Mines with effect from 17.9.1979 and as Additional Director, Mines with effect from 1.3.1993. Assailing the impugned order dated 24.10.2003 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a wrong concession made by the petitioner with regard to the claim for promotion vis-à-vis one Shri V.K. Srivastava shall not defeat his legitimate claim to be considered for promotion from the due date insofar as the promotion to any junior including one Shri Mithilesh Kumar is concerned. The respondents acknowledge having considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the D.P.C. held on 17.9.1979. Annexures-2 and 3 reveal that the candidature of the petitioner got deferred for no fault of his because of absence of necessary documents to be furnished by the 2 respondent officials themselves. On that date there were no proceedings pending or orders of punishment against the petitioners. Any alleged minor punishment for the years- 1981-82 and 1982-83 subsequently also expunged is completely irrelevant. The impugned order is reasoned and speaking and, therefore, the counter affidavit rightly does not attempt to travel beyond it. The respondents appear to be shifting responsibilities of their own burden on to the petitioner. An erroneous concession made by the petitioner with regard to Mr. V.K. Srivastava when he was senior to the petitioner did not absolve the respondents of their duty to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law after examining their own records to ascertain if there was any junior to the petitioner who had been promoted without considering his case. The respondents seek to cast the burden of their own inefficiency upon the petitioner. Insofar as the claim for Additional Director, Mines is concerned, the counter affidavit does not dispute that Mithilesh Kumar, junior to the petitioner came to be promoted as Additional Director, Mines. Learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore right in his submission that the petitioner was entitled to be 3 considered for promotion from the date that his junior came to be promoted by creating a supernumerary post. The petitioner appears to have been denied proper consideration in time for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Mines. Had that been done, the next consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Director, Mines may have been entirely different. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.5.1994. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5432/98 only whereafter the respondents have passed the impugned order. Considering the diligence with which the petitioner has pursued the matter even before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal as far back as 1988 which heard the matter and failed to deliver judgement, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. Let the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Mines and Additional Director, Mines be considered afresh from the date that his junior Shri Mithilesh Kumar has been promoted and appropriate orders passed both with regard to his claim on the post of Deputy Director, 4 Mines and Additional Director, Mines with all consequential benefits within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Court requires the respondents while passing such appropriate orders for promotion to adequately deal with the issue of grant of interest to the petitioner, assurance as this Court is satisfied that it is the officials of the State Government who are primarily responsible for this multiplied litigation before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal, the earlier round before this Court and the present impugned order which this Court has found to be wholly unsustainable. The application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)