IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.2005 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12770 of 2005 ====================================================== 1. Sri Ram Shankar Choudhary S/O Late Prafulla Chandra Choudhary R/O Mohalla- Anandvihar Colony, P.S.- Danapur, Distt.- Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Urban Development Department, Government Of Bihar 2. Secretary Urban Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Vikash Sachiwalaya, Patna 3. Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Vikas Sachiwalaya, Patna 4. Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 5. Secretary, Personnel Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== 4 21-11-2011 Heard the parties. 2. For a long period, the appellant was posted out of the parent department on deputation. He came back from Marketing Board in the year 1999. He claimed for promotion because of promotion granted to others. By an order dated 6.1.2003, he was promoted from the post of Assistant Planner to that of Associate Planner with effect from 1.12.1994. For next promotion to the post of Town Planner, he had to spend five years period on the post of Associate Planner. For further promotion to the post of Chief Town Planner, another period of two years was required by way of necessary experience in the post of Town Planner. 3. On having got the promotion in the year 2003 but with Patna High Court LPA No.2005 of 2010 (4) dt.21-11-2011 2 effect from 1.12.1994, the writ petitioner/ appellant wanted his case to be considered for further promotion and he ultimately moved this Court through a writ petition which was disposed of on 21.7.2003 (Annexure- 12). The authorities were directed to consider his representation within a specified period. Thereafter necessary steps were being taken but the appellant superannuated from service on 31.7.2004. In the meantime, as appears from Annexure-17 dated 22.6.2004, the departmental promotion committee considered the case of the petitioner and found him fit for being promoted to the post of Town Planner from the date of issuance of notification to that effect. Before such recommendation of the departmental promotion committee could be implemented, as noted above, the appellant superannuated. 4. The Writ Court dismissed the claim of the appellant for being promoted to the post of Town Planner from 1.12.1999 and on the post of Chief Town Planner from 1.12.2001 after considering a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of I. Chuba Jamir v. State of Nagaland (2009) 15 SCC 169. There is no issue with the law stated in that judgment that mere eligibility does not confer any right for promotion. Generally, after superannuation the right of consideration also comes to an end unless there are some compelling facts and circumstances. In the Patna High Court LPA No.2005 of 2010 (4) dt.21-11-2011 3 present case, it is apparent that the appellant was authorized to work on the post of Chief Town Planner with effect from 30.10.2000 by virtue of working arrangement made through Annexure- 11. It is also apparent from the facts noted above that appellant’s case had already been favourably considered by the departmental promotion committee before his superannuation for promotion to the post of Town Planner. There is no dispute that by that time the required time period of five years counted from 1.12.1994 was already over and there was no rival claim or legal difficulty in the way of the State in issuing the notification for promotion. But that was not done and the appellant retired on 31.7.2004. 5. Before the Writ Court a specific plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner that he will not claim other monetary benefits if he is granted benefit of promotion only by way of suitable revision of his pensionary benefits. 6. In the facts noted above, we find that the action of the State in not issuing the necessary notification of promotion to the post of Town Planner in spite of recommendation in favour of the appellant made on 22.6.2004 was unreasonable and unfair in respect of an employee who was given charge of yet higher post since a long period vide Annexure-11 dated 30.10.2000. Hence, Patna High Court LPA No.2005 of 2010 (4) dt.21-11-2011 4 we modify the order under appeal dated 9.9.2010 passed in CWJC No.12770 of 2009 and direct the authorities to issue necessary order for at least notional promotion of the appellant from any date prior to his superannuation. As discussed above, appellant will be entitled to monetary benefits only by way of appropriate revision of his pensionary benefits as per law and pension rules on account of his promotion to the post of Town Planner. Such exercise must be completed within a period of 3 months from today. 7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)