IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6371 of 1992 1. MRS. RENUKA NARAIN W/O LATE DR. MAHENDRA NARAIN resident of Road No.12, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Town and Distt-Patna. 2. AJAY NARAIN 3. RAJAY NARAIN 4. AMIT NARAIN, Petitioners N0.2 to 4, all sons of Late Mahendra Narain, all residents of Road No.12, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Town and Distt-Patna. …………Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. Joint Director, Health Service (Medical Education), New Secretariat, Baily Road, Patna. 3. Indian Medical Council through its Secretary, Temele Lane, Kotla Road, New Delhi. ……….Respondents. 4. Dr. Durga Kumar Srivastava 5. Dr. Vijayeswara Sharma ……..Intervenor Respondents. ----------- 21. 19-Feb-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the state. 2. From the order of substitution dated 11th December, 2008 it is clear that the original sole writ petitioner is dead. The relief claimed in the writ petition is related to service career of the writ petitioner. He had claimed promotion to the post of Associate Professor in medicine w.e.f 10.2.1978 instead of 31.3.1990 as granted by impugned order contained in Annexure-27 dated 14.5.1990. 3. Learned counsel for legal heirs of the original writ petitioner submits that the legal heirs include widow of the original writ petitioner and she has a right for getting proper family 2 pension and for that a claim has been made through an amendment petition. 4. Having considered the scope of the writ petition as filed in the year 1992, we are of the view that right of promotion from any particular date is a personal right of the employee concerned and only monetary benefits may be allowed to the heirs if the original claim for promotion etc is allowed. In the present case, the prayer was only for a promotion from retrospective effect claimed by the original writ petitioner while he was in service. Once he is no longer in service and dead, he cannot be promoted to any post. 5. So far as claim of the widow for family pension is concerned, that in our view is a claim which she will be entitled to maintain through a separate writ petition if family pension is not granted to her by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. 6. With this observation and liberty the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)