IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8544 of 2009 Ram Sumer Sharma Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 2/ 05/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim is to be considered for promotion to the post of Jailor as also to the next higher post of Jail Superintendent. The grievance is primarily related to the fact that his juniors were being considered for promotion to the post of Jailor causing hostile discrimination. During the pendency of the writ application the respondents first promoted the petitioner as a Jailor on 30.11.2009 from the date of his joining. The petitioner protested when by an order dated 10.5.2010 the date of his promotion as a Jailor has been shifted back to 14.2.2008 being the date that his immediate junior had been promoted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the claim of the petitioner had wrongly been denied, he is entitled to monetary benefits of the promotional post from the date of promotion. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Lokayukta had called for certain reports against the petitioner with regard to negligence in duty, his 2 confidential reports were not available, approval of the Finance Department was required, after all of which he has been given notional promotion from 14.2.2008. The Court is at a complete loss to understand the contention of the respondents. There have been more than one judgement of this Court on the issue that where promotion has wrongly been denied and ultimately on contest, promotion is granted from a retrospective date, the benefits have to follow. Rule-58 of the Bihar Service Code on which invariably the respondents have sought to rely to deny salary in a case of retrospective promotion has also not been approved by the Court and yet the respondents continue to pass orders of the present nature. Perhaps, what is required is to hold an internal assessment for the reasons of delay in consideration for grant of promotion, fix responsibility, and if under court orders the monetary benefits have to be paid retrospectively, it requires serious consideration whether the Government should bear the liability or those in whom the Government had placed trust to defend its interest, but had betrayed it, should pay such arrears. It has been held in (1999) 4 SCC 181 (State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao) at paragraph 5 :- “5. In normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are effected all 3 benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier…..” The petitioner is held entitled to the promotional benefits of the post of Jailor with effect from 14.2.2008. Let the same be paid to him within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. If the petitioner fulfils all requirements to be considered for the post of Jail Superintendent, let the respondents consider his case for such promotion as the counter affidavit is completely silent on that aspect. The application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)