IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4215 of 2010 SMT. RAMAPATI DEVI, W/O SRI SHEO BALAK CHAUDHARY, R/O MOHALLA- ASHOK NAGAR, ROAD NO. 11, P.S. KANKERBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA ..........Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BETTIAH 7. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, BETTIAH 8. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR, PATNA -----------Respondents 2 01-10-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. While the petitioner substantively held the post of Supply Inspector, she was asked to officiate as an Assistant District Supply Officer from 31.8.1994. She is stated to have superannuated on 31.5.2002 (mentioned as 31.5.2000 as in the order of promotion which learned counsel submits is erroneous). After her superannuation, the petitioner has been granted promotion as Assistant District Supply Officer on 22.6.2007 with effect from 1.1.1996. It is further submitted that while officiating as Assistant District Supply Officer, the petitioner also 2 discharged additional duties of a District Supply Officer from 1.1.1997 to 31.5.2002. Learned counsel submits that additional allowance under Rule 103 Bihar Service Code for the period 31.8.1994 to 31.12.1995 has been sanctioned, but has not been paid. Learned counsel for the State fairly acknowledges that, if payment has been sanctioned on 15.12.2009 as is contended the petitioner is entitled to the same. In so far as the claim for full salary of the post of Assistant District Supply Officer from 1.1.1996 till superannuation on 31.5.2002 is concerned, the submission is that retrospective promotion after superannuation is itself evidence of the delay in grant of timely promotion by the respondents which in any event is not even explained in the counter affidavit. The pension of the petitioner has been revised on the post of Assistant District Supply Officer. Learned counsel for the State contended that the promotion shall be deemed to be notional in view of the subsequent superannuation. If the petitioner had not discharged the duties of Assistant District Supply Officer from 1.1.1996 till superannuation, different considerations may have arisen on the claim for full salary retrospectively. But since the petitioner was discharging duties of the post of Assistant 3 District Supply Officer from 1.1.1996 till superannuation, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly relies upon a Bench decision of this court in 2003 (2) PLJR 44 (Md. Hafiz Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) to submit that he is entitled to the full benefits of salary of that post. In A.I.R. 1998 SUPREME COURT 2909 (Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh V. Hari Om Sharma) the Court has held at paragraph 6 as follows:- “6. Having regard to these facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in ordering that the respondent shall be promoted on the basis of “quota” fixed for non-diploma holders with 10 years of service and not on the basis of integrated seniority. The Tribunal was also justified in ordering payment of salary to the respondent for the post of Junior Engineer-I with effect from 1990 when he was made to work on that post. It is true that the respondent, to begin with, was promoted in stop-gap arrangement as Junior Engineer-I but that by itself would make no difference to his claim of salary for that post. If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. The Tribunal has noticed that the respondent has been working on the post of Junior Engineer-I since 1990 and promotion for such a long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop-gap arrangement.” In so far as the claim for allowance under Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code, for the period that the petitioner discharged additional duties as a District Supply Officer is concerned, that claim in paragraph 18 of 4 the writ petition has not been considered necessary by the respondents to answer in their counter affidavit. This Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to officiating allowance on the post of District Supply Officer also. Let the arrears of allowance of the petitioner on the post of Assistant District Supply Officer from 31.8.1994 till 31.12.1995, full salary of the post of Assistant District Supply Officer from 1.1.1996 till superannuation on 31.5.2002 and the allowance for the period that the petitioner officiated as the District Supply Officer be paid to her after deductions/adjustment of payment already made within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If payment as aforesaid is not made within the time fixed, the petitioner shall be held entitled to interest upon the same to be recovered from the salary of the delinquent who may have delayed the compliance of the order of the Court. This application is allowed. Amit ( Navin Sinha, J.)