IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 4885 of 2005 1. SHAILENDRA PRASAD SHAW, SON OF LATE PRAYAG SHAW, RESIDENT OF PRAGAG DHAM MOHALLA MUNDICHAK, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR ………………….. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT VIKAS BHAWAN (NEW SECRETARIAT) PATNA 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. ..………………. RESPONDENT ----------- 03. 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State as well as Accountant General. Petitioner joined the service as Agriculture Inspector on 29.04.1958 and has superannuated from service on 31.03.1995. His grievance is that, persons, whose names were below the petitioner in the gradation list, have been given promotion to the post of Junior Selection Grade, Bihar Agriculture Service with effect from 11.03.1992 vide Annexure-2 to the Writ Application, but petitioner’s name was not considered for such promotion. Such persons, who are junior to the petitioners are given promotion vide Annexure-2, subsequent to their superannuation, but the same has been done without considering the name of 2 petitioner, whose name was there in the gradation list at serial no. 99. Specific case of one Uday Pratap Singh has been mentioned by the petitioner, whose name was at serial no. 100 in the gradation list. Uday Pratap Singh had also been given promotion to the post of Junior Selection Grade in Bihar Agriculture Service vide Annexure-2. Considering the fact that petitioner has retired in the year 1995 and he is claiming promotion with effect from 1992, it will be proper that the petitioner be given liberty to represent his case before the competent authority for similar relief. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today before the competent authority, in that case the representation filed by the petitioner must be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of its filing. In case the petitioner is found to be entitled for similar relief, it should be allowed to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, but in case the Respondents are of the view that petitioner is not entitled, the representation of the petitioner will 3 be disposed of, giving reason for the same. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Application is disposed of. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)