IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.625 of 2008 PARMESHWAR PRASAD MAHTO . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS . ----------- 2/ 04/12/2009 The controversy relates to a claim to be considered for promotion from the post of Amin to that of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No.9787/05 which was disposed with directions to consider his claim. The impugned order has then been passed holding that in April, 2005 the post of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo was converted into a State Cadre Post. The Commissioner of the Division was no more competent and it was now for promotions to be considered at the State level distinguishing the case of the petitioner from that of Kamalesh Mishra in L.P.A. No.963/05. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It supports the impugned order to urge that now in view of the fresh rules having been promulgated making the post of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo a State cadre under the Bihar Junior Revenue Service 2 Cadre Rules-2004 vide notification No.326(4) Revenue dated 8.4.2005 the case of the petitioner cannot be considered except in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended from the pleadings that the petitioner had represented against denial of promotion to him long ago in August, 1995 and January, 2005, much before the promulgation of the new Rules and which the authorities sat over. Kamalesh Mishra was one position above the petitioner in the seniority list of 2004 of Amins. He has been granted such promotion in pursuance of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11263/98 against which L.P.A. No.963/05 has been dismissed on 16.11.2005. Learned counsel for the State sought to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of Kamalesh Mishra to urge that Kamalesh Mishra came to this Court in 1998 and orders upon which were passed in 2004. The petitioner approached this Court after the promulgation of the new Rules earlier in C.W.J.C. No.9787/05. Therefore, he is not 3 entitled to the benefit of the same order as Kamalesh Mishra on account of his not having been vigilant and permitting the new Rules to intervene. This Court does not uphold the objection of the respondents. If the petitioner was below Kamalesh Mishra in the seniority list of Amins and had represented in 1995 before the promulgation of the new Rules, non-consideration of his case by the respondents and permitting the new Rules to intervene shall be giving advantage to the respondents of their own lapses. Though there is no right to promotion, the right to be considered for promotion entails a timely consideration of such promotion. In that view of the matter, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the objection of the respondents to dismiss the writ application. This Court holds that the petitioner has made out a claim to be considered for promotion in a manner prior to promulgation of the new Rules in April, 2005. The law stands settled that a claim for promotion to be a valid consideration has to be done in accordance with the Rules as existing on 4 the date that the eligibility for the promotion arose. Let the respondents consider and pass appropriate orders with regard to the promotion of the petitioner in light of the judgement of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11263/98, as affirmed in L.P.A. No.963/05. This consideration shall have to be inclusive of the directions in the second last paragraph of the order in C.W.J.C. No.11263/98 for payment with the actual monetary benefits also. Considering that the petitioner has retired on 30.9.2007, let all consequential actions including revision of his pensionary benefits etc., payment of legitimate dues etc. be completed within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)