IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15833 of 2005 SMT.ARCHANA CHOUDHARY @ KUMARI ARCHANA CHOUDHARY WIFE OF LATE SHISHIR KUMAR GFUPTA RESIDENT OF DALMIA NAGAR, P.S. DEHRI ON SONE, DISTRICT ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, EMPLOYEMENT AND TRAINING, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONMER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-KSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TGRAINING, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, SECRETARIAT, RANCHI. 4. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 24/09/2010 Based on the earlier direction of the High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8830 of 2001 the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered but the respondents ran into difficulty as the bifurcation of the State and creation of Jharkhand led to certain administrative problems. One of them related to the decision on the strength of the cadre and the available posts which could be filled up thereafter. The said order has become impugned order in the present writ application filed on behalf of the petitioner. - 2 - This was the position when a speaking order was passed. Now a counter affidavit has come to be filed on behalf of the State of Bihar where it has been stated that the exercise of division of cadre and finalisation of strength, roster clearance, vacancy position etc. is still being carried out. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.07.2003. Since the retirement of the petitioner also intervened, there was no occasion to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion after retirement. On such a stand being taken by the respondents, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner in terms of eligibility arose many years ago. Process was also initiated but since the matter dragged on, the above intervening circumstance came into play. In that view of the matter the respondents should consider granting her promotion from the back date. It is already held in several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person has a right to consideration for promotion but not right to promotion as such. In addition, in the given facts that the State came - 3 - to be bifurcated and the exercise related thereto were equally important for identification of number of posts, roster clearance and the claim of other similarly situated employees, there was no occasion to consider the case of the petitioner from back date. The fact that the petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2003 is also a consideration whether any direction can be given for considering her case for promotion now. Petitioner must reconcile to the given situation though certain developments were not within her control but even then the State of Bihar was handicapped in taking a decision in the development indicated in the earlier part of the order. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)