IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14259 of 2003 GANESH PRASAD & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the petitioners:- Mr. R.C. Sinha, Mr. Pramod Kr. Singh & Mr. Binod Kumar (No.2), Advocates For the State:- Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A.-10 Mr. Zaki Haider, A.C. to G.A.-10 ----------- 06 09.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.2000 declining to grant them the benefit of the post of Personal Assistant, by treating them as Stenographer appointed in the Secretariat and its attached offices under the decision dated 7.8.1997 and 1.6.1992. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on 9.1.1975 and 19.6.1981 respectively in the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, petitioner no.3 was appointed on 7.4.1978 in the office of Director, Statistics and Evaluation. The notification of the State Government dated 7.8.1997 stated that those appointed before 1979 and working as Steno-Typist were up-graded to the post of personal Assistant. By notification dated 1.6.1992 this date of 1979 has been shifted to 30.8.1988. 2 Aggrieved by denial of such consideration for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant, the petitioners then came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9274 of 1997 disposed on 27.9.1999 holding that the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and the Director Statistics and Evaluation had been shown at serial no. 22 and 30 of the list of the Secretariat and its attached offices and, therefore, the respondents have wrongly assigned that the petitioners are not employees of the Secretariat and its attached offices. Directions were then given to consider their cases in light of Government policy. The respondents have then passed a fresh order that the petitioners are not employees of the Secretariat and its attached offices and that the scheme for up-gradation of Stenographer to the post of Personal Assistant has been done away with from 23.6.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that if the respondents delayed consideration, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit, if they were otherwise eligible on the relevant date, but suffered on account of laches on part of the respondents in non-consideration. The finding in the impugned order dated 3 13.6.2000 that the petitioners were not employees of the Secretariat and its attached offices is patently erroneous. The submission on behalf of the State that the petitioners approached this Court in 1997 only after the revocation of the scheme for up-gradation of Stenographer to Personal Assistant in 1995 does not appeal to the Court. That issue stood foreclosed by C.W.J.C. No. 9274 of 1997. Once this Court held that the petitioners were employees of the Secretariat and its attached offices, the reiteration of the ground that they were Stenographers appointed in the Muffasil offices, being contrary to a judicial finding is completely unsustainable. If that be so, and the petitioners have been denied up- gradation claims for an erroneous reason, the wrongful denial done by the respondents during the period that the scheme existed cannot visit the petitioners with the consequences. The counter affidavit urges no other grounds and neither does the impugned order. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant in accordance with their date of eligibility in terms of the Government 4 instruction dated 7.8.1987, as modified with effect from 30.8.1988 within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with all consequential monetary benefits. The impugned order dated 13.6.2000 is accordingly set aside and the application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)