IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.692 of 2007 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar – II, GP 19, Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Pandey JC to GP 19 For the respondents: Mr. Ajay K. Singh P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 24th June, 2008 Appeal is admitted. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate, waives service for the respondent. Looking to the controversy raised in the appeal, we intend to dispose of the appeal at this stage itself and that we do. This is a third round of litigation concerning promotion of the respondent to the post of Assistant Director/District Public Relation Officer in the Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of Bihar. The first writ petition was filed by the present respondent in the year 1996 being CWJC. No.3893 of 1996, wherein he prayed for direction to the present appellants to 2 give him promotion to the post of Assistant Director/ District Public Relation Officer. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the present respondent to make representation to the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance. Pursuant thereto, the present respondent made representation which came to be rejected on 24th February, 1999. This led to the second round of litigation at the instance of the present respondent. He filed writ petition being CWJC. No.9642 of 2000 challenging the order of the State government rejecting his representation for his promotion to the post of Assistant Director/District Public Relation Officer and for direction to them to re-consider his case. The said writ petition was disposed of by the single judge of this court on 14th May, 2001, whereby he quashed and set aside the order dated 24th February, 1999 and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the present respondent (petitioner therein) for his promotion to the post of Assistant Director/DPRO afresh in accordance with law. Time of two months was granted from the communication of that order. Pursuant thereto the State government considered the case of the present respondent for promotion to the post of Assistant Director/DPRO and gave him promotion with effect from 31st December, 2001. The present respondent was still dissatisfied as 3 according to him he ought to have been given promotion with effect from the year 1989 when one Bishwanath Singh and other juniors were given promotion. This led to the filing of the third writ petition being CWJC. No.12209 of 2004 by the present respondent. The single judge allowed that writ petition by her order dated 15.2.2007 and passed an order directing the Secretary of the Department of Information and Public Relation, Bihar, to pass necessary order giving promotion to the present respondent (original petitioner) to the post of D.P.R.O. with effect from the year 1989 i.e., the date on which Bishwanath Singh and other juniors were allowed promotion. It is this order which is carried in appeal by the State government and its functionaries. After having heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondent, we are of the view that the order of the single judge cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. The single judge ignored and overlooked the most vital fact that Bishwanath Singh was promoted to the post of A.D.P.R.O with retrospective effect i.e., 14.9.1979 while the original petitioner (respondent herein) was promoted as A.D.P.R.O. with effect from 6.10.1982. How could in this view of the fact, the writ petitioner (respondent herein) be ordered to be given promotion with effect from the year 1989 when Bishwanath Singh was given promotion. 4 Bishwnath singh seems to be much senior to the original petitioner and not junior to him and that promotion of Bishwnath Singh on the post of A.D.P.R.O. with retrospective effect i.e., 14.9.1979 has attained finality is not in dispute. As a matter of fact this aspect was noticed by this court while deciding the second writ petition (CWJC. No.9642 of 2000). The case of the present respondent ( original petitioner), thus, could not be treated at par with Bishwanath Singh and he cannot be given promotion from the date Bishwanath Singh has been given promotion. Despite our repeated query, counsel for the respondent could not tell us the name of the person junior to the respondent who has been given promotion with effect from the year 1989 nor could he show any material in this regard. In the counter affidavit filed by the State government in opposition to the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that promotion to the post of DPRO has been given to the petitioner (respondent herein) with effect from 31.12.2001. Thus, there is no merit in half-hearted attempt of the counsel for the respondent in arguing that he has not given promotion to the post of DPRO. There is no material that justifies modification of the date of promotion by giving retrospective promotion to the 5 respondent with effect from the year 1989. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 15.2.2007. We record that since as per the case of the appellants, the respondent has been given promotion to the post of Assistant Director/District Public Relation Officer with effect from 31st December, 2001, he is entitled to all benefits of that post with effect from 31st December, 2001. The parties shall bear on their own cost. Neyaz R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J