Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner who is posted as Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Palamau, Daltonganj has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 26.7.1993 contained in letter No. 7423 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of Bihar (respondent No.3) refusing promotion of the petitioner to the post of Super time selection-1 (Annexure-5) and also for further directions for giving .further promotion to the petitioner from the date from which the officers junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the said promotional posts. 2. The petitioner entered into the State services in the year 1963 as Sub Deputy Collector and he was promoted as Deputy Collector in the year 1965 and received Senior Selection grade on and from 4.2.1981 and joined as Secretary, Some Command Area Development Agency, but on 29.2.1984 a criminal prosecution was lodged against several persons including the petitioner regarding forgery and Financial involvement of several lacs of rupees on an F.I.R. being filed by Dy. S.P. (C.B.I.) Patna. On the basis of that report, Government decided to proceed against the persons against whom allegations were made, but in that decision, the petitioners name was left out but ultimately petitioner was arrested and was suspended and the criminal prosecution continued against him. He was suspended on 10.1.1986. The petitioner then came up in CWJC No. 3477/88 (R) for quashing the order of his suspension. The aforesaid writ application was finally heard by a Division Bench of this Court and disposed of on 10.4.1989 giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the authorities concerned for revoking the suspension order in the light of the observation made in the order itself and also it was mentioned that such representation should be disposed of within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. But such representation was not disposed of within the time framed and as such the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 603 of 1990 (R) and also preferred another writ petition being CWJC No. 5436 of 1991 (R) for quashing the order of suspension and other consequential reliefs following therefrom, The said contempt petition was heard by a Division Bench which quashed the suspension order by order dated 21.3.1992, The petitioner in view of that order gave his joining and posted as Additional Collector (Land Ceiling) Palamau at Daltonganj) and since then he is continuing as such. The other writ petition being CWJC No. 5436 of 1991 (R) filed by him was finally heard on 21.12.1992 by another Division Bench of this Court and was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation for his promotion before the appropriate authority and it was further directed that the appropriate authority should dispose of the representation by a speaking order by 31.1.1993. Further liberty was given to the petitioner that if the result of the representation would be disfavourable to him, he would be at liberty to move this Court again. In compliance of that order, the petitioner filed his representation before the respondent No.2 but the same was not disposed of in time as observed by this Court, but on a later dated i.e. 26.7.1993 his representation of promotion and consequential reliefs therefrom have been rejected simply on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. 3. The order-sheets filed in this case being Annexure-9 series show that the C.B.I. case being Special Case No. 9 of 1984 is pending before the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases (South Bihar, Patna) since 1.3.1984 and uptill now, it has not come to the stage of commencement of trial of the case, although long 11 years have been passed. It has been observed in very many cases, by the Apex Court that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings or any other cases of suspension etc. the employer is to make provisions for the promotion of the delinquent officer or employee in sealed cover procedure so that on completion of the proceeding, it could be given effect of the promotion with retrospective effect. 4. the employer is to make provisions for the promotion of the delinquent officer or employee in sealed cover procedure so that on completion of the proceeding, it could be given effect of the promotion with retrospective effect. 4. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is going to retire in the year 1997 and is in the fag end of his service career. Moreover, it has been specifically alleged that in Para-21 of the writ petition that one of the co-accused in the above mentioned C.B.I. case, namely, Dhanai Mahto, against whom there were serious allegations in the F.I.R. has been promoted by the State Government during the pendency of the criminal case to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department, but the petitioners case of promotion was rejected arbitrarily, although allegation against the petitioner in the C.B.I. case is of much inferior type and that the Government at the initial stage decided not to proceed against the petitioner 5. In the present case, although several adjournments were given, no counter-affidavit has been filed from the side of the Government and although a report was called for from the C.B.I, court regarding the stage of trial or fate of the C.B.I. case as mentioned above, nothing is coming forth. The full order-sheet of the C.B.I. case up-to-date has been filed from the side of die petitioner and it has already been mentioned that the case has not come to the stage of commencement of trial uptil now. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the authority concerned were wrong in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion during the pendency of the vigilance case and the same was not being finally disposed of. 7. In the result, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the promotion of the petitioner in its proper perspective, if he is otherwise qualified for the same. But, the order should not be passed about promotion till the finalisation of the Special Case No. 9 of 1984 before the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases (South Bihar, Patna). 7. In the result, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the promotion of the petitioner in its proper perspective, if he is otherwise qualified for the same. But, the order should not be passed about promotion till the finalisation of the Special Case No. 9 of 1984 before the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases (South Bihar, Patna). Further direction is hereby given to respondent No. 5 i.e. Special Judge, C.B.I. Patna to take all possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months next from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order on day to day basis hearing without giving unnecessary adjournments being sought for on behalf of the parties. But, if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, as directed above, the aforesaid Special Case shall stand quashed in so far as petitioner is concerned, subject to the condition that the petitioner co-operates in the day to day hearing of the trial before the Special Judge, Patna. The petitioner must also get all consequential reliefs flowing from the promotion as mentioned above after the Special case is over. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with above directions as mentioned above. No order as to costs.