IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7463 of 2011 1. Vinay Sharma Late Suresh Chandra Singh R/O Vill. + P.O.- Kanchanpur, Police Station- Bihta, Distt.- Patna—Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary (Management), Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna -----------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, G.P.-19 Mr. Archana Prasad, AC to GP-19 ----------------- 3 26.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has superannuated now. He retired as Executive Engineer on officiating basis. Substantive promotion on the said post has been elusive for him. It is his case that he has been left at in officiating capacity and respondent authority has granted promotion to others, many of whom are junior to him. He has a right now to claim promotion on a substantive basis since respondent did not include his name in the notification no. 171 dated 31.1.2007. In the counter affidavit which has now been filed on behalf of the State they have indicated that a decision not to grant promotion to petitioner was taken by DPC on 30.5.2008 due to pendency of a departmental proceeding against him and now that the said departmental proceeding stands quashed by the High Court they are going to recommend his case for consideration for grant of benefit of promotion in a substantive capacity on the post of Executive Engineer. Curiously enough the counter affidavit is silent on this aspect whether there was anything pending against the petitioner when promotion 2 was due which according to petitioner relates to the year 1999. If there was nothing adverse against the petitioner he ought to be given promotion from the due date. One thing however which has emerged from the pleading of the petitioner as well as from the counter affidavit is that the decision to grant substantive promotion to one and all has been taken only in 2007. When issue was placed before DPC there was a departmental proceeding pending at the relevant time. To that extent sealed cover procedure ought to have been resorted to in the case of petitioner but since it was not done and now that the proceeding stands quashed by the High Court there was obligation upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner both from the point of view of granting him substantive promotion as well consider the case for grant of first ACP. There is indication in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the case of the petitioner will be placed before the DPC for an early decision in light of the developments including the order of the High Court. If that be so, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondents that the case of promotion of the petitioner would be expedited and dealt with at the earliest. The respondents would be bound to consider the case of the petitioner in light of above as if there is nothing pending against the petitioner now or then as promotion was due to him since the year 1999. This writ petition is allowed with the direction as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)