IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7111 of 2009 1. Ratneshwar Lal Das, son of Anant Prasad, resident of Mohalla Budhu Chak, Ward No.6, P.O. & P.S. Katihar, at & District Katihar 2. Hari Mohan Biswas, son of late Shobha Lal Biswas, resident of Mohalla Budhu Chak, Ward No.6, P.O. & P.S. Katihar, At & District Katihar 3. Kameshwar Mochi, son of late Yogendra Mochi, resident of Mohalla Laliyahi (Bishariasthan), P.O. & P.S. Katihar, At & District Katihar 4. Gauri Nath Mandal, son of late Bisheshwar Prasad Mandal, resident of village Sujapur, Via Semapur, P.S. Barari, District Katihar … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. District Superintendent of Education, Katihar, Collectorate Katihar, District Katihar … Respondents ---------------------------------- 5. 9.12.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The four petitioners, who have retired from service on 31.7.2002, 30.4.2004, 31.1.2005 and 31.12.2002 after more than 5 to 7 years of their retirement, have filed this writ application on 25.6.2009 for the following relief: “That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents directing them to consider the case of petitioners for promotion in Grade-3, Matric Trained Selection Scale and after granting such promotion and fixation of their salary in the promoted scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000, make the payment of arrears of salary and other consequential benefits from the due date of their promotion.” In the writ application the petitioners have claimed 2 that a cause of action to them had arisen only when a list of 223 teachers was circulated by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar vide letter no. 3420 dated 20.12.2008. The respondents have explained this aspect in the counter affidavit by taking a plea that a minimum teaching experience of 8 years was required as per 1993 Rules for being promoted in Grade-3 and that the petitioners could qualify for such promotion in Grade-3 only on or after 1.1.2004, inasmuch as all of them were given senior scale of Grade-2 with effect from 1.1.1986. As noted above, on 1.1.2004 only petitioners no. 2 and 3 were continuing in service and therefore, if the case of the respondents in their counter affidavit is accepted petitioners no. 1 and 4 would automatically be disqualified for such post. Counsel for the petitioners, however, has explained that the date of promotion of the petitioners in Grade-2 is 1.4.1981 and not 1.1.1986. In the considered opinion of this Court grant of promotion in Grade-2 pay scale of teachers would be a qualifying date for promotion in Grade-3 but no document has been brought on record to establish the aforesaid date. It is a well settled concept of Service Jurisprudence that a person would qualify for promotion with effect from a date his junior to him is given such promotion. There is also nothing in the writ petition to show that any of the junior to the petitioners were given promotion in Grade- 3 with effect from any date on which the petitioners were continuing in service. 3 It, thus, becomes clear that well after 5 to 7 years of retirement of the petitioners they have sought to raise a stale claim on half baked material. Counsel for the petitioners in such circumstances would rely on paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows: “That it is stated that in the light of revised promotion rule, the gradation list has to be revised, the process has been started and the case of the petitioners will be considered as early as possible.” In the light of the aforementioned stand of the respondents this Court would direct the competent authority, namely, District Education Establishment Committee, Katihar to examine the case of the petitioners for grant of promotion to Grade-3 and if it is found that any person junior to the petitioners has been given such promotion in Grade-3 with effect from a date on which the petitioners were continuing in service, they too will be given the benefit of such promotion. On the other hand, if it is found that anyone junior to the petitioners was not given promotion till the date they continued in service, their cases would be rejected by a speaking order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/