IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11265 of 2005 Mohammad Sharief Qureshi …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar Patna 3. Commissioner cum Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar Patna. 4. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Patna. …Respondents ----------- 05. 26.07.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks appropriate writ/order/direction to quash part of the notification contained in memo no. 474 dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-1), whereby although he was granted notional promotion with effect from 9.9.1997 to the post of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, but the monetary benefits of the promoted post was made effective from 12.07.2000 when the petitioner assumed the post. Brief facts leading to the present case are as under: Petitioner was a member of the Bihar Finance Service as direct recruit. The process of promotion was taken up by the respondents in the year 1997 wherein 24 officers were promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes vide notification no. 1225 dated 9.9.1997. The case of the petitioner was left out, whereas juniors to him were promoted. The aforesaid action of the respondents was called in question by the petitioner in CWJC No. 8876/97. By a proceeding dated 29.07.1999 (Annexure-2), this Court directed the respondents to 2 grant the petitioner provisional promotion forthwith and further granted liberty to the respondents to see whether there was any substantive charge against the petitioner was pending at the time when the process of promotion was taken up. The petitioner assumed the promoted post with effect from 12.07.2000. The State-respondent thereafter came out with a notification dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-1) granting him promotion with effect from 9.9.1997 denying the monetary benefits by contemplating therein that he will get those benefits from 12.07.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time the petitioner was served with any memo/article of charge. In his submission, there was no proceeding either departmental or judicial was pending against him, when the exercise of promotion was taken up by the respondents. It is also the stand of the petitioner that persons junior to him were considered and granted promotion with effect from 9.9.1997 and they have drawn the salary of promotional post whereas the petitioner has been denied the monetary benefits from the date on which he was promoted (9.9.1997). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that he has been instructed in the matter to submit that there was no proceeding either judicial and/or departmental pending against the petitioner at the time when the exercise of promotion was taken up. The materials on record further go to show that persons junior to the petitioner were granted promotion with 3 effect from 9.9.1997 with all monetary benefits. In my view, in these fact situation, the respondents would be wholly unjustified in denying the benefits of promotion for the period 9.9.1997 to 12.07.2000 as has been contemplated in the impugned notification contained in Annexure-1. For no fault of the petitioner he was not considered for grant of promotion when juniors to him were considered and promoted. Law in this regard is well-settled. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits of the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the petitioner for the period 9.9.1997 to 12.07.2000 as quickly as possible. Petitioner would produce a copy of the present order before the concerned respondent enabling the latter to comply with the present order. Since the petitioner has already superannuated from service, this Court would appreciate if the monetary benefits of the said period are paid/authorized to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case, the respondent concerned fails to pay/authorized the said benefits in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid time, then the petitioner would also be entitled to a cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall also be paid to the petitioner along with other monetary benefits admissible to him in accordance with the present order. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )