IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4560 of 2003 BHABENDRA NATH JHA, son of late Mukti Nath Jha, village Kariahi, P.S. Sursand, in the district of Sitamarhi … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna- 15 3. The Commissioner and Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna-15 4. The Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms,Government of Bihar, Patna-15 … Respondents. ----------- 4. 31.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application pertains to grant of promotion on the post of Under Secretary in the Road Construction Department. The petitioner has a reason for such grievance based on an order of promotion dated 22nd December, 2001, inasmuch as two persons junior to him, namely, Brajesh Singh and Satyadeo have been given promotion with effect from 30.6.1992 who as per records of the Department itself, as contained in gradation list dated 14.2.1989, were placed below the petitioner at Serial No. 271 and 272 of the gradation list vis-à-vis the petitioner at Serial No. 269 of the same gradation list. It is, therefore, case of 2 the petitioner that when his juniors were given promotion with retrospective effect on 30.6.1992 he too had to be considered and given such promotion on account of being senior to both the aforesaid Brajesh Singh and Satyadeo. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with reference to the stand taken in the counter affidavit would submit that the petitioner had already retired from service in the year 1994 and as such, even if he was found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee as he no longer remained in service on the date of notification, his promotion could not be notified. This Court will have a difficulty in accepting such submission and in fact the entire stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit would go to show that there was nothing against the petitioner and in fact he was also found fit for promotion and the matter remained pending only because of seeking clearance from the Lokayukta and the office of the Vigilance Commissioner. There does not seem to be any justification in not promoting the petitioner at least 3 from the date from which his juniors, Brajesh Singh and Satyadeo got promoted. It would also not be correct on the part of the department to take a plea that such seniority list was revised because no seniority list has been placed on record and at least was notified nor in force. The entire counter affidavit itself would go to show that the petitioner was entitled for such promotion. That being so, this Court would direct the respondents to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner afresh and if need be by reverting either of them Brajesh Singh or Satyadeo if there be no vacancy for the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled also for the same benefit which was given to Brajesh Singh or Satyadeo and if the petitioner’s promotion on the post of Under Secretary is notified, he will be also entitled for fixation of his entire retirement benefit in the revised pay scale. As the petitioner was kept on waiting for grant of promotion and its consequential benefit for a period of six years during the pendency of this writ 4 application, such decision must be taken, implemented and communicated to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/