IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3844 of 2010 1. DINESH PASWAN S/O LATE DAROGI PASWAN R/O FLAT NO.202,SRI RAM BHUSHAN APARTMENT ,EAST BOARING CANAL ROAD,PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR CONSUMER PROTECTION FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY,FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Anil Kumar Sinha, Uday Pratap Singh No.1 & Amrendra Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to AAG 10 ------- 3. 28.10.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner who is a Supply Inspector belonging to the Scheduled Caste category seeks relief to be considered for promotion with effect from 21.6.2007, being the date when his juniors have been promoted. The limited facts necessary to be noticed are that for the charge year 16.10.2001 to January 2002 a memo of charge was issued on 16.6.2007. Upon conclusion of the departmental proceeding he has been visited with a minor punishment of stoppage of three increments with non cumulative effect, which debars him to be considered for promotion for three years. Learned Counsel submits from Annexure 9 that Amrendra Kumar Azad, Mithilesh Kumar Rai and Chandra Mani Prasad were similarly proceeded with and awarded the same punishment by orders dated 12.5.2008, 12.5.2008 and 2.5.2008 respectively. A specific assertion has been made in the supplementary affidavit that Sri Mithilesh Kumar Rai has also been granted promotion in September 2008 while promotion order dated 30.9.2008 of Chandra Mani Prasad and Amrendra Kumar Rai have been appended as Annexure 10. The charge therefore is of hostile discrimination and the submission is that the respondents have rightly promoted the aforesaid persons as the charge year being the same for them also looses its effect after three years in 2005. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is required to be considered for promotion from the year 2005 and that this consideration has to be done from the date that his juniors were promoted subsequently. A minor punishment entails stoppage of consideration for promotion for three years. Computed from January 2002 the period expires in January 2005. If that be so, the petitioner is required to be considered for promotion from the date that his juniors have been promoted. The respondents are therefore required to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date that his juniors have been promoted as this Court holds that denial of consideration for promotion on account of the punishment lapses after January 2005. Let such consideration be done and final appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)