IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5822 of 1996 BACHCHA PRASAD & ORS . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 6. 02.11.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Whatever may have been stated in the writ application or pleaded at the time when the writ was filed many things have happened thereafter, which has altered the position or the nature of the dispute which was initially raised. Petitioner no.1 is dead and has been substituted by his wife. So far as, other two are concerned their final status is not known, since counsel for the petitioners has no information or knowledge whether they are surviving or not. From the perusal of the counter affidavit, the notifications and Annexures thereto coupled with statement made in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is evident that though the petitioners entered service as piecemeal workers but later on they became permanent employees and on being found entitled, were 2 given benefits of promotion. Under various notifications the pay scales recommended by the 4th and 5th pay revision committee including the recommendation of the anomaly pay removal committee was duly implemented. So far as the petitioners are concerned at the time of their retirement they had not been given benefits of the pay scale of 6th pay revision with effect from 1.4.1997. Be that as it may, some of the issues raised by the petitioners are not required to be gone into or adjudicated, because ultimately the respondent authorities have given them what was notified on the basis of the recommendations of the pay revision committees. However, with regard to claim of at least petitioner No. 2 that he ought to have been given the benefit of promotion from the time when the post became due, this Court can only deserve that it is a matter for consideration by the respondents but petitioner does not have any right as such for promotion merely due to vacancy of post at a given time. He has a right for consideration provided he fulfilled all other requirements. 3 All the petitioners have retired in the year 1997 itself. If for some reason the benefit of the selection grade was not given before retirement they can approach the authorities to look into the matter if the petitioners as their legal heirs made out a case for the same. The writ application is disposed of with the liberty as above. Devendra/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)