IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16401 of 2001 LALLAN MISHRA, son of late Tapeshwar Mishra, resident of village Mahanama, P.S. Maner, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The District Education Establishment Committee through its Chairman, District Magistrate, Patna, District Patna 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna, District Patna 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna, District Patna … Respondents ----------- 6. 7.7.2010 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This is an application through which the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to quash part of office order as contained in Memo No. 2457 dated 27th March, 2000 issued under joint signature of Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna (respondent no.5) and District Superintendent of Education, Patna (respondent no.6) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been granted/ given 2 only promotion to the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 18.3.87 but salary/ monitory benefits has been granted/ given from the date of joining on the post of Headmaster and further to direct the respondents authorities to grant/ give the salary/ monitory benefits w.e.f. 18.3.87 i.e. from the date on which the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Headmaster and further to direct the respondents authorities to grant time bound promotion/ senior grade scale w.e.f. 10.2.94 with all monitory benefits and further to grant any other consequential relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled to.” Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, would submit that once there was a direction given by this Court in the order dated 28.11.1996 in C.W.J.C.No. 6410/1995 as with regard to considering the case of promotion of the petitioner and giving him the consequential benefit, the resultant impugned order passed by the authority on 27.3.2000 giving retrospective promotion with effect from 18.3.1987 but restricting payment of salary of such promotional post from the date of 3 joining is wholly arbitrary. In this context he would also refer to a similar case of Balmiki Singh and an order passed in his case dated 10.8.1998 in C.W.J.C.No. 4716/1997. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that in the case of the petitioner there is no averment that any person junior to him was given such promotion and consequential benefit with effect from 18.3.1987. To that extent he has drawn attention to the averment made in paragraph 12 of the writ application which reads as follows: “ … … … It is stated that all persons junior to petitioner have been granted monitory benefit of promotion of the Headmaster w.e.f. 18.3.1987.” Thus, from the reading of the writ application it becomes clear that the allegation of the petitioner as with regard to discrimination is absolutely omnibus and vague. When the petitioner has not named any person allegedly junior to him to have given promotion and also consequential monetary benefit from 18.3.1987 it would be difficult 4 for this Court to allow this writ application at least on the ground of juniors being given such benefit. The submission of Mr. Singh that this Court had directed in the order dated 28.11.1996 for giving consequential benefit while considering the case of promotion can have no exception, inasmuch as whenever promotion is given it has a consequence of monetary benefit. The question is whether on the earlier occasion in the writ application of the petitioner this Court had given direction for payment of retrospective consequential benefit. In this context it would be found that as a matter of fact the petitioner’s challenge to the promotion of the alleged juniors was rejected in straightforward manner by this Court on 28.11.1996 by recording the following reasons: “ … … … … At this stage, it is to be taken into note that respondent nos. 5 to 15 were promoted by order dated 9.9.1988. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on 21.8.95 that is after seven years of such promotion. In this background, prayer of the 5 petitioner relating to challenge the order of promotion of respondents no. 5 to 15 is rejected … … … . Once the petitioner was denied such benefit by an inter-party order and the petitioner has also not cited name of any other person in this writ application, his prayer for grant of retrospective financial benefit must be and is hereby rejected. As a matter of fact it is this aspect of the matter which has also been explained by the respondents by explaining Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code and subsequent Government Resolution dated 4.4.1985 which lays down that the monetary benefit of the promotional post is admissible only from the date of joining on the promoted post. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said counter affidavit in fact would cover the irreversible stand of the respondents as with regard to denial of retrospective promotional benefit and for sake of clarity they are quoted hereinbelow: “4. In this context it is most humbly submitted that as per the provisions issued by the department in this connection by letter no. 6 2240 dated 18.2.84 and by the Finance Department circular no. 2074(F) dated 4.4.85, and as per Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code as well, the monetary benefits of the promoted post is admissible only from the date of joining on the said promoted post. 5. The petitioner has claimed for actual monetary benefit against the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 18.3.1987 basically on the ground that similarly situated persons had earlier been given the said benefit w.e.f. 18.3.87. In this connection, it is most humbly submitted that in the year 1988, some science graduate teachers had irregularly, without the approval of the District Education Establishment Committee, been given promotion to the post of Headmaster.” This Court also does not find any infirmity in the aforementioned stand of the respondents which has the valid sanction of the statutory provisions of Bihar Service Code and the executive instructions issued thereunder. In any event once the petitioner has failed to establish the case of discrimination it would be difficult for 7 this Court to allow retrospective financial benefit. That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/