IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3523 of 2011 Dr.Vanshidhar Singh, son of Yugeshwar Prasad Singh, retired Asstt. Poultry (Sale and Purchase) Officer, Jamshedpur, resident of Qr. No.5/3/1 Adityapur, P S – Adityapur, Distt. Singhbhoom(Jharkhand) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary to Govt. of Bihar, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Secretary, Personal and Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shambhu Nath Jha. For the State : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to GP-17 ------- 02. 8.7.2011 Petitioner was in the service of the Animal Husbandry Department, who superannuated on 28.2.1988. At the time of superannuation he was holding the post of Assistant Poultry (Sale & Purchase) Officer at Jamshedpur. He has filed the writ application with some hope after a notification came to be issued by the said department on 17.11.2009 showing a list of names of such employees who are to be given benefit of second time-bound promotion. The notification is Annexure-4 to the writ application. This notification is not in absolute terms. Petitioner submits that way back on 12th January, 1996 by a notification issued by the establishment of the Animal Husbandry Department, petitioner was granted exemption from qualifying in a written departmental examination when he had already superannuated in the year 1988. The said letter does indicate that it will come into effect from the date of its 2 issuance. The stand of the petitioner is that the said notification is proving to be illusory because no benefit is accruing to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-4. As the respondent authorities have not responded to his request for release of the benefit on some kind of objections or queries having been raised by the Accountant General. Writ has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to give to the petitioner benefit in terms of Annexure-4. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State but counsel representing the State submits that in terms of the document brought on record by the petitioner, which is Annexure-2 and deals with grant of exemption from qualifying in the departmental examination, the terms and conditions for such exemption are indicated therein. Attention of the Court is drawn to Clause-2 of Annexure-2, which talks of the exemption being effective from the date of the order. Annexure-3 is also in similar terms because it does say that the exemption granted to the petitioner is with effect from the date of the order. If two documents Annexures 2 and 3 are read, this Court can only observe that the respondent State authorities have all the time as stationary to waste because Annexure-3 itself indicates that the petitioner was born on 28.2.1930, retired on 1.3.1988, then what was the object of granting exemption from sitting in departmental examination in the year 3 1996. Probably Annexure-3 has come to be issued in response to the petitioner’s claim in this regard, may be made many many years ago. Since Annexure-4 itself indicates that the benefits so granted are provisional and contingent, obviously the exemption granted to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-3 is of no avail. There should not be any confusion on this count and the effect of Annexure-4 will be limited to the extent indicated therein. The money component will not flow in favour of the petitioner. Writ in the above stated circumstance is dismissed being devoid of merit. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)