IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12612 of 2005 MAHESH PRASAD SON OF LATE BANSHI RAM RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. 11, BACK OF HARDING ROAD, P.S. SACHIWALAYA, PATNA AT PRESENT WORKING AS A DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL) ON OFFICIATING BASIS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF P RSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. ----------- 5 24/09/2010 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Director (Technical) in the department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar. Date of promotion as notified is 17.11.2006. This promotion does not satisfy the petitioner. He wants the date of promotion to be pushed back first to the date when the post became vacant which is stated to be from 1.4.1997, if not atleast to the date recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its decision dated 29.07.2006. The departmental promotion committee has made a recommendation to grant promotion to the petitioner - 2 - from 14.09.2002. That is the date from which the post the petitioner was promoted became a cadre post. Yet another relief now prayed for is that the petitioner has been made to officiate on the post of Director (Technical) for a long period of time which is stated to be 7.5.1997 and the respondents would be obliged to atleast grant him 20% higher of his basic pay for officiating on the post, provided the respondents do not agree to grant him promotion from the said date as well. So far as the claim of the petitioner for his promotion from the date of vacancy of the post is concerned, the stand of the State based on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttranchal and Another Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma which is a decision dated 4.12.2006 in Appeal (civil) No. 5573 of 2006 categorically holds that vacancy does not create a right for promotion. Consideration is another issue. To that extent, prayer of the petitioner in this regard is fit to be rejected. His alternative prayer that he ought to be promoted from the date the departmental promotion committee has made its recommendation is also required - 3 - to be looked into critically. The fact stand that by an amendment the post in question became a cadre post but merely because the State declared the post to be a cadre post, how the petitioner acquired a right to be promoted from the date of such notification is not understood. State is bound to consider the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee from the date the eligibility in favour of the petitioner is decided. The date from which such a decision was taken and recommended can, at the most, be accepted as the date when the eligibility of the petitioner in all respect was found in his favour. There has been a little delay in issuance of notification which is not un-usual but the contention of the petitioner to accept his date of promotion from 14.09.2002 is not based on any rationale as such emerging from the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee. The Court, however, has no difficulty in allowing the benefit of promotion to the petitioner from the date the decision was taken by the departmental promotion committee to grant him promotion since he was fit for such promotion and to that extent the date of - 4 - promotion may be shifted from 17.11.2006 to 29.07.2006. So far as the other aspect of grant of higher pay for higher responsibility is concerned, in this regard, petitioner is given liberty to make such a claim giving supporting notifications and materials saddling him with the responsibility by the respondents and the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna would be obliged to take a decision in this regard within a period of three months of such an application being filed. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)