IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4850 of 2006 Sadhu Sharan Paswan, S/o-Late Bilas Paswan, resident of Village-Meghi, P.S.-Dipnagar, District-Nalanda, at present post as Supervisor (Karyadarshak), Department of Sugarcane, Amarpur, District-Banka. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Department of Sugarcane, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Sugarcane, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. –Respondents. ----------- 04 10.01.2011 Inspite of details facts as noted in order dated 07.12.2010 and the issues involved nothing new has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State very fairly states that in view of the decision that was taken in the year 2003, as stated in the counter affidavit, to abolish the post of Organizer, the said decision is yet to be formalized. He states that in fact there has been no notification issued by the Government abolishing the post nor is there any decision of the Government against utilizing the said post. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.1087 of 2003 for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Organizer in the Sugarcane Department. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2003 with a direction to the Cane Commissioner, Bihar to decide the matter and take a decision. The Cane Commissioner by his order dated 11.07.2003 held that there was no utilization of the said post and a decision had been taken to - 2 - abolish the post and, as such, petitioner’s case for promotion to the said post could not be considered. That was 2003. Petitioner has come to this Court once again for the same relief on the ground that the post is in existence and there is no decision to abolish the same. Once again a counter affidavit was filed in the present case in the year 2006 itself stating that on account of decision to abolish the post taken in the year 2003, petitioner’s promotion to the post of Organizer cannot be considered. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, petitioner has annexed the yearly report of the year 2005-06 of the Sugarcane Development Department of Government in which it is clearly specified that the two posts of Organizer in the Sugarcane Department is available which are lying vacant. He then has annexed a communication of the Cane Commissioner, Bihar himself which clearly stipulates that the sanctioned and functioning posts which are available in the Sugarcane Department include two posts of Organizer. Before the Court he has further produced the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee and resolution of the Finance Department dated 21st January, 2010 wherein the revised pay scale of Organizer is specified. Petitioner, thus, submits that only to deny promotion to the petitioner this false stand is being taken whereas the post has neither been abolished nor has there been any conscious decision of the Government not to fill up the post. Let it be noted that noticing these contentions the matter was adjourned on 07.12.2010 for the Cane Commissioner, - 3 - Bihar to file a comprehensive counter affidavit. None has been filed and the learned State counsel merely states that a decision has been taken as stated in the counter affidavit in the year 2003 but admits that pursuant to the said decision no notification abolishing the post was ever issued. In my view, the post having been created and being the promotional post in the cadre till it is formally de-notified it is bound to be available to the Government servant. Petitioner has been fighting for this post for over a decade to which he is entitled. He is being denied the said post on the ground that the Government has decided to abolish it. It is regrettable that notwithstanding such categorical stand no notification has been produced as it is admitted that Government is yet to formalize such a decision. The result is that because of this indecision of the Government for almost a decade the petitioner remains deprive of his promotional avenues with its consequences. That is most arbitrary and cannot be permitted. The Government must either abolish the post or notify a conscious decision not to utilize the post in particular period, in absence whereof, they would be bound to fill up the post by promotion, as envisaged in law, unless for some good reasons there is an appropriate decision to act to the contrary. In my view, petitioner and their like would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post with its emoluments from the day they become fit for promotion. The Cane Commissioner, Bihar is, accordingly, directed to take up the matter and decide the - 4 - suitability of petitioner for grant of promotion at the earliest. For the said purpose, he is directed to constitute the Departmental Promotional Committee within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a copy before him and see that the Departmental Promotional Committee would complete its deliberations within a month thereafter. If it is found that the petitioner was liable to be promoted from any earlier date, promotion would be granted with effect from that date with all consequential benefits. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)