IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1107 of 1998 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shiva Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Jahanvi Dutta Pandey, resident of village Kubari, PS Karpi, District Jehanabad, at present posted as Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Bihar, Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General –cum- Inspector General of Police, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 4. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 5. The Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.... .... Respondents ******** For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shambhu Nath AC to AAG III ********* P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police at least with effect from 12.2.1979, i.e. the date from which the seniority of his junior had been fixed, and also the consequential benefits flowing therefrom. Learned counsel submits that the initial dispute starts from fixing of seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector which ought to have been computed with effect from 17.8.71 but has wrongly been done with effect from 11.2.76 on the basis that the same cannot be given 2 from an earlier date since the petitioner did not clear the training examination. Without getting into the details on facts as well as on merits, it is common ground that the petitioner’s case is identical to the case of one Krishna Nandan Singh who had also filed CWJC No. 7746 of 1995 which came to be disposed off on 6.12.95 in favour of the petitioner in which this Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be granted such promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 17.8.97, inter alia, on the ground that the passing of P.T.C. examination had nexus with promotion to the higher post of Sub- Inspector of Police but not for the purpose of determination of seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The specific stand in the pleading is that the petitioner was at Serial number 104 in the list of seniority whereas the said Krishna Nandan Singh was at sl.no. 105. The further facts as stated in the writ petition are also identical to the facts of the case of the said Krishna Nandan Singh. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 4 does contest the position on merits but with regard to facts the same are not disputed. However, it is stated that against the order dated 6.12.95 in CWJC No. 7746 of 1995, the State had preferred LPA No. 31 of 1996 (though it is submitted at the Bar that number of the LPA is 131 of 1996), which stood dismissed and after that the State had preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 1.5.98 which by 3 that time probably was not numbered and has been mentioned as SLP(Civil) No.……of 1998. Learned counsel for the parties are not in a position to readily submit as to what happened in the said Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that since the matter has been decided on merit with regard to the case of Krishna Nandan Singh which has attained finality in the sense that he has been given all consequential benefits treating his initial appointment on the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector with effect from 17.8.71, the present petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment and relief which have been granted to the said Krishna Nandan Singh from at least the dates on which the same was made available to him. 3. Learned counsel for the State has tried to take this Court on merit and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta (AIR 2000 SC 2306), in which it has been held that promotion to the post of Inspector on officiating basis which was not in accordance with rule could not entitle the party to claim such promotion from the date of such officiation. Learned counsel for the State has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Khare vs. State of Bihar (2010(2) PLJR 215), in which also 4 it has been held that officiating promotion given as Inspector being in the teeth of the provision, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of such continuous officiation. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the said factual back-ground in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the State are not very appropriate to the facts of the present case and this Court does not feel that the same are of any help to the State for the reason that in the said cases the promotion itself was against the rules and there was a stipulation that they will not be counted for the purpose of seniority. This Court in the case of Krishna Nandan Singh (supra) has already held that the passing of P.T.C. training examination was relevant only for the purpose of subsequent promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and was not germane and relevant for the purpose of determining seniority as Assistant Sub- Inspector, with which this Court also is in agreement, the case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished and he cannot be treated differently from the treatment given to Krishna Nandan Singh by the State authorities. However, this Court would not like to give any opinion on the legal issue regarding claim of seniority on the basis of officiating promotion which needs to be gone into and decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the individual cases and there cannot be a straight-jacket rule in this regard. In the present case, since the order passed in the case of Krishna Nandan Singh has attained finality and 5 as per the pleadings of the writ petition on facts which has not been controverted in the counter affidavit, the petitioner being in the same category and senior to the said Krishna Nandan Singh, cannot be allowed to be treated differently or discriminated against with regard to the benefits he has got from the respondents. Since the parties are not readily in a position to inform the Court about the result of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State before the Hon’ble Apex Court on 1.5.98, this Court would not like to comment on the actual relief which the petitioner is entitled to. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed off with a direction to the respondents to grant the same benefits which have been granted to Krishna Nandan Singh w.e.f. the dates the same have been granted. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential reliefs including monetary benefits flowing from the same. The same should be given to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order by respondent no.2. ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 12th of December 2011 NAFR/ mrl