IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10395 of 2005 AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE BALDEO PRASAD, R/O 38 STATE BANK COLONY, KALI MANDIR ROAD, HANUMAN NAGAR, PS- PATRAKAR NAGAR,DISTT-PATNA -------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECY. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, EDMPLOYMENT & TRAINING , NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE ADDL. SECY. DEPATT. OF LABOUR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA 3. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DEPATT. OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN,PATNA------- --------------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Amber Nath Banerji,Advocate Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, Advocate For the State: Mr. G.P.-6. ----------- 6 3.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner retired on 30th September 1998. At the relevant time he was officiating on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Agriculture) at Bhagalpur. This post he was holding from 15.1.1993 on the basis of the notification issued by the respondent State which is stated to be in the exigency of service. Petitioner got aggrieved when by virtue of the subsequent notification and decision including the case of such persons who had superannuated came to be given substantive promotion on the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner by a decision taken by the DPC which has been annexed as annexure- C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stand taken by the State in their counter affidavit that at one point of time the petitioner was proceeded departmentally - 2 - which culminated into punishment of censor and withholding of salary and other allowances for the period of suspension went against the petitioner’s claim for promotion on the substantive basis. But the effect of such punishment died out or exhausted while the petitioner was still in service and while the cases of other who had similarly situated or junior persons were considered there was no reason why the case of the petitioner could not be considered by the DPC. The stand of the State is silent on this aspect of the matter. The Court has gone though annexure-C and has seen that even persons post retirement have been considered for promotion and benefit extended to them. When the case of the others was being considered the case of the petitioner could not be considered in the year 2005. There was nothing pending against the petitioner at the relevant time when he superannuated and in the opinion of the Court there was no bar for consideration if his case was taken up at the appropriate time along with others. In the totality of the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar that keeping in view their own annexure contained in annexure- C dated 20th August, 2005 which is the decision of the DPC granting promotion to similarly situated persons, if not junior to the petitioner, the case of the petitioner could also be considered afresh and decision thereafter be communicated to him within a - 3 - period of six months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)