IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7220 of 2006 INDRASAN JHA W/O Late Dr. Durgacharan Jha, resident of Sameli Basa, Kajwalichak, M.P. Dwivedi Road, Kotwali Chowk, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 5. The Director, Deshi Chikitsha (Indigenous Medicine), Department of Health, Medical Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 6. The Principal, Yatindra Narayan Astang Aurved College, Champanagar, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. ----------- 3 24.09.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one again appears for the State today. As order of this Court dated 26.8.2010 has not been complied and the counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5, this Court will proceed with the matter without the counter affidavit. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner, widow of Late Dr. Durgacharan Jha, reads as follows:- “I.Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities concerned to consider the case of the petitioner‟s husband for grant of regular promotion to him on the postl of „Pravachak‟ (Reader) and „Pradhyapak (Professor) respectively as per the policy decision of the State Government as contained in Resolution No.202 (M) dated 04.03.1982. Or in the alternative Issuance of an order, direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities concerned to grant Ist Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner at least with effect from 10.01.1995. II.Issuance of an order, direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2 respondent authorities concerned to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, on grant of said promotion to her husband.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the College in question in which husband of the petitioner was working was taken over by the State Government on 10.1.1985 but the finality to take over of services of her husband had acquired only after his death in the year, 1995, inasmuch as, an order of absorption in the case of husband of the petitioner was passed on 20.5.1997. Such order of absorption of husband of the petitioner, Annexure-5, will go to show that services was taken over as a Lecturer of jl ”'kkL= ¼vk;qosZn½] Jh ;rhUnz ukjk;.k v"Vkax vk;qosZn egkfo/kky;] ,oa vLirky] ukFkuxj] Hkkxyiqj and the same was subject to the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission. In fact, the order of absorption of husband of the petitioner and all other teaching staffs so covered by order dated 20.5.1997 was wholly conditional as would be apparent from the text of the Government notification dated 20.5.1997. Grievance of the petitioner is that as finality sought to be given by the notification dated 20.5.1997 for regularization of services of husband of the petitioner and in fact other teachers was still awaiting the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission, the case of promotion of husband of the petitioner could not be considered either in his life time or even there after. In this context, it has been explained that it was only under the order of this Court that even post retirement benefit which was 3 held-up was released in the year 2000 after the petitioner had filed writ application and contempt application. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that if the respondents would have regularized services of husband of the petitioner, either he would become entitle for regular promotion on the post of Professor or in the alternative to the time bound promotion as he had completed period of ten years from the date of take over of his services before his death. In the opinion of this Court, the crucial question would be date of regularization of services of husband of the petitioner, inasmuch as, either for giving promotion or for giving time bound promotion the authorities will be required to first consider as to whether husband of the petitioner was entitled to be regularized in terms of paragraph 2 of the notification dated 20.5.1997. As this exercise has not been completed in the case of husband of the petitioner till date, the consequential decision for giving promotion to husband of the petitioner or other teaching staff of the College has not been taken and as such this Court would direct the Principal Secretary of the Health Department, who has not filed counter affidavit in this case denying any of the fact so asserted by the petitioner, to take expeditious steps for considering the case of husband of the petitioner for its being regularized and if upon such exercise made by the Commission and the Government the services of husband of the petitioner is regularized, the Principal Secretary then would be also obliged to consider the case of grant 4 of promotion or time bound promotion as the case may be within a period of six months from the date of passing of the final order in respect of regularization of services of husband of the petitioner. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is given retrospective promotion either on regular basis or on time bound basis, its consequential benefit in terms of retirement benefit shall also be given to the petitioner. The entire process for considering the promotion of husband of the petitioner including action for regularization must be completed by the respondent in the aforementioned period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)