IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3210 of 2010 1. JAGDISH CHAUDHARY S/O LATE RAM AVTAR CHAUDHARY R/O VILL. MAKHDUM SARAI LAHERA TOLI, P.O.+P.S. SIWAN DISTT.- SIWAN 2. SUDARSHAN RAM S/O LATE DOMA RAM R/O VILL.- SURHARIDIH, P.O. TALKATHU, P.S. M.H.NAGAR, HASANPURA, DISTT.- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE) DEPTT. BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE) DEPTT. BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE UNDER SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 02. 07.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have been promoted with retrospective effect as Deputy Superintendent of Police by subsequent orders. Their contention is that the delay in their promotion was attributable to the respondents State authorities and for that reason they cannot be deprived of all consequential benefits from the date of promotion. Strong reliance is placed on certain orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9878 of 1998 and C.W.J.C. No. 11269 of 2002. Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding that this Court has already been pronounced on more than one occasion with regard to 2 Rule 58 of Bihar Service Code, that it shall have no application in a case where the promotion is delayed on account of official laches, the respondents insist upon relying on the same rule to deny full monetary benefits from the date of promotion. Learned counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. This Court is satisfied that no useful purpose is to be served by requiring the respondents to file counter affidavit. The petitioners have already filed representation in December, 2009. Let the same be considered and disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the respondents find justification in the claim, or any part of the claim, they are required to make available the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioners within the same time. If the petitioners place reliance on any orders of this Court in support of their claims, and the respondents propose not to grant such relief, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order highlighting the issues which distinguish the case of the petitioners from those on which they rely, to facilitate judicial review should the 3 need arise. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)