IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12762 of 2005 Shatrughan Roy, s/o- Late Chand Govind Roy, r/o- village and P.O.- Sherpur Kala, P.s.- Bhawar Kal, District- Gajipur (U.P.) ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balmikinagar. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 7. The District Provident Fund Officer, Motihari. 8. The Dy. Secretary, Finance Department, (Personnel claim Cell) Government of Bihar. ……. Respondents ----------- 6 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to consider and grant him promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date when junior(s) to him were granted promotion. In order to substantiate the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the gradation/seniority list of the Junior Engineer in the Department of Water Resources as contained in letter No. 7703 dated 14th November, 2002 issued under the signature of the Engineer-in- Chief, North, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar. Petitioner figures at Sl. No. 1541 in the gradation/seniority list. It is the stand of the petitioner that persons junior to him were considered and granted promotion 2 vide notification contained in Memo No. 2525 dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure-5). It is admitted position that petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.10.2001. Having found discriminatory treatment at the hands of the respondents in not granting him promotion, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 4.10.2005. Several sets of counter affidavits and rejoinder(s) thereto have been filed which are on record. Initially a stand was taken by the respondents that on account of non-availability of relevant records including Bio- Data respecting the petitioner, his case could not be considered. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents have averred as under in paragraph 5: “5. That after the availability of Bio-data the department included the name of the petitioner in proposed promotion list. But B.P.S.C. vide its letter No. 3797 dated 23.1.2009 instructed the department that the Commission would not consider the case of the retired/dismissed/deceased Employee. Petitioner retired on 31.10.2001 as such and in light of the instruction of B.P.S.C. vide letter No. 3797 the name of the petitioner was not included in proposed promotion list which were sent to B.P.S.C. for consideration. “ In support of the said stand, respondents have enclosed letter dated 23.1.2009 issued by the Special Officer of the Bihar Public Service Commission. The respondents have, thus, opposed the prayer of the petitioner solely on the ground that since the petitioner superannuated in the meanwhile, his case not required to be considered for grant of promotion. A 3 stand has also been taken that the monetary benefits of the promoted post is/are likely to be made available to the petitioner for which considerations are being made. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, draws attention of this Court to show that the persons above him and below him were granted promotion by the said notification dated 17.6.2005, who had already superannuated in 2001 or 2002 or so. Perusal of the said notification does indicate that persons who had already superannuated were considered and granted promotion after their retirement from active service. The stand of the respondents is thus self contradictory and not sustainable in law. In the Government service, status of an employee is equally important as the scale of pay to which he is entitled to under the relevant rules/provisions. It is also well established by a catena of decisions of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an employee is vested with a legal right to be considered and granted promotion with effect from the date when juniors to him were considered and granted promotion. There is nothing on record to indicate that any proceeding either judicial or departmental was pending against the petitioner. On the contrary, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the case of the petitioner could not be considered on account of non-availability of records respecting him. If the respondents are not able to 4 procure relevant details of the petitioner and thereby consider him along with other eligible persons and grant him due promotion then they cannot justifiably turn around and say that since the petitioner has already superannuated, his case is not required to be considered for promotion although juniors employees were granted promotion after their superannuation. Reliance in this regard may be made in the case of Paras Nath Prasad versus The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 248. Petitioner has also placed reliance on an order of this Court dated 20.9.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2193 of 2005 which takes the similar view. This Court is thus satisfied that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed in the following terms: Let the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date (1.1.1998) when juniors to him were granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall complete the exercise in this regard within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)