IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7227 of 2002 1. JAGANNATH PRASAD, son of Late Suraj Prasad, Resident of village Jhalkhoria, P.O. Jhalkhoria, P.S. Agrer, District Rohtas 2. Suraj Ram, son of Sugrim Ram, resident of village and P.O. Lehthan, P.S. Agiwan Bazar, District Bhojpur 3. Shri Niwas Prasad Jaiswal, son of late Lal Chand Prasad Jaiswal, resident of village, P.O. and P.S. Chenari, District Rohtas … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Leprosy Officer Rohtas at & P.O. Sasaram, District Rohtas 3. The Medical Officer Incharge Leprosy Control Unit, Sasaram, At & P.O. Sasaram, District Rohtas 4. The Medical Officer Incharge, Modified Leprosy Control Unit, Sasaram, At & P.O. Sasaram, District Rohtas … Respondents. ----------- 5. 19.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the three petitioners in this joint writ application reads as follows: “This writ application is being filed for issuance of direction to the respondents authorities for fixation of pay in the pay scale of Medical Social Worker right from date of order of promotion i.e. from 19.12.1995 and from 1.1.1996 in the 6th revised pay scale being 5000-150-8000.” Counsel for the petitioners in this context would invite attention of this Court 2 towards the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1690 dated 19.12.1995 (Annexure 1) wherein the promotion of the petitioners on a provisional basis has been noticed with the following stipulations and terms and conditions: ^^izksUufr ds ekxZ esa vizR;kf'kr foyEo dh laHkkouk;sa ,oa bl foyEo ls lacaf/kr deZpkfj;ksa ds chp laHkkfor vlarks"k ,oa dk;Zdze ckf/kr jgus dks nq`f"Vxr j[krs gq, LFkkiuk lfefr }kjk fo"k; oLrq dh leh{kk dh x;h ,oa fuEufyf[kr fu"d"kZ izfrikfnr fd;s x;s%& 1- oSls vfpfdRlk lgk;dksa] ftuds vfHkys[k izkIr gSa] mUgsa vkj{k.k jksLVj ds vkyksd esa vkSicfU/kd izksUufr nh tk;A 2- oSls vfpfdRlk lgk;dksa dks] ftuds fu;qfDr dh lEiqf"V yfEcr gS] muds fu;qfDr inkf/kdkjh ls lUrqf"V dh vis{kk dh tk;A 3- vkSicfU/kd :i ls fd;s tkus okys izksUufr ls ;fn fdlh ojh; O;fDr dh izksUufr] vfHkys[k ds vHkko esa izHkkfor gksrh gS rks muds fy, in lqjf{kr j[s tk;A 4- vkSicfU/kd izksUufr fd;s tkus okys vfpfdRlk lgk;dksa dks ;fn fpfdRlk lekt lsod ds leku osrueku esa dkyc}@duh; ojh; izoj dksfV izksUufr dk ykHk iwoZ es izkIr gks x;k gks] rks mugsa bl izksUufr esa foRrh; ykHk vuqekU; ugha gksxkA mijksDr df.Mdk esa vafdr LFkkiuk lfefr ds mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa ,oa ckrksa ds rgr~ fuEukafdr vgRrkZ laiUu vfpfdRlk lgk;dksa dks :0 14]00&26]00 ds orZeku iqujhf{kr osrueku esa muds uke ds lkeus vafdr LFkku ij fpfdRlk lekt lsoeksa ds fjDr in ij izksUufr nsdj inFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSij fpfdRlk lekt lsod@LokLF; izf'k{kd ds in ij budh ikjLifjd ojh;rk ogh jgsxh tks vfpfdRlk lgk;d ds in ij gSA lacaf/kr vfpfdRlk 3 lgk;dksa dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izksUufr i'pkr~ inLFkkiu LFkku ij bl vkns'k ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls 15 fnuksa ds vanj vfuok;Zr% ;ksxnku dj ysaA** Counsel for the petitioners submits that it was infact clause 4 of the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.12.1995 of the authority which in effect takes away the benefit of promotion to the petitioners. He would explain that such promotional order for its coming into effect being dependent on condition of being relieved from the earlier post, the petitioner cannot be saddled with denial of fixation of pay from the date of notification of promotion. In the opinion of this Court the issue in this case is very much limited. The order of promotion was notified on 19.12.1995 and the petitioners were given the effect of such promotion with 12.1.1996 i.e. the date of their joining. Thereafter the pay fixation benefit came into effect in the year 1999, with effect from 1.1.1996 and now the petitioners want to date back their promotion from 12.1.1996 to 19.12.1995. It is this aspect of the matter which has made the petitioners wise only after all of them 4 had retired from service, inasmuch as it is the admission of the petitioners in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 that petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 had retired from service on 31.1.1997, 31.1.1999 and 28.2.1997 respectively. Admittedly this writ application was filed on 1.7.2002 i.e. after nearly seven years of such cause of action. The petitioners, however, happily availed the benefit of promotion on the basis of their date of joining and continued in service on such promotional post till the date of their retirement and after almost 3 to 5 years of their retirement they became conscious for their rights for claiming the benefit of promotional order from the date of its being issued. Any order of promotion cannot be given effect to from the date it is issued unless the same is implemented. In this case a cadre promotion of more than 125 employees was issued from the Headquarters, and if that was sought to be acted upon in a period of less than one month, the rationale 5 applied for giving benefit of such promotional order from the date of joining of the petitioners i.e. 12.1.1996 even otherwise cannot be faulted. This Court, however, would not like to go into the merits of such claim for another reason, namely, that the writ application suffers from unexplained delay and laches as noted above. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Nuruddin vs. the State of Bihar & anor., reported in 2009(3) PLJR 747, would be of no assistance, inasmuch as in that case the order of promotion dated 31.3.2000 had notified the effective date of promotion as 1.2.1996. It was in this regard that this Court had held the petitioners of that case entitled for promotion with effect from 1.2.1996 without making it dependent on the date of joining. In the case of the petitioners there is no such stipulation of retrospective promotion, rather an order of promotion was issued on 19.12.1995 and a period of 15 days was provided for compulsory joining of the post. 6 Even this 15 days will take joining of the petitioners on or after 4th January, 1996 and therefore, the petitioners could not be become entitled for pay fixation in terms of the Government resolution giving fixation of pay benefit with effect from 1.1.1996. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/