Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming inter alia for an order on the respondents asking them to decide the case of his promotion to the post of professor in the department of dravyagun in Government Ayurvedic college, Patna with effect from 30th december, 1981 and also for an order commanding the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor in the. said department of dravyagun with retrospective effect from 30th December, 1981. 2. The relevant facts for deciding the controversy between the parties are noted as follows : On 16th August, 1965, the petitioner was posted as a Lecturer in government Ayurvedic College, Patna in the department of Dravyagun. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed to the post of reader in the said Department in Government Ayurvedic college Patna by the Government of Bihar vide office order, dated 17th may, 1975. The petitioners case is that on the appointment of Mr. N. G. Bandhopadhayay to the post of Professor in the post-graduate department of dravyagun Rasha Sastra, in Government Ayurvedic College, Patna, in the months of October, 1981, the post of professor at the under-graduate level in dravyaguna in the Government ayurvedic College become vacant from 30th december, 1981. The case of the petitioner is that the Principal of the government Ayurvedic College, Patna submitted a proposal to the State government through the Director, Indigenous Medicine for filling up the vacancies on the post of Professor of dravyaguna at the under-graduate level in the Government Ayurvedic College, patna. Then the Director, Indigenous medicines, took a decision to fill-up that, post from suitable Readers from dravyagun Department. 3. However, Principal of the government Ayurvedic College, Patna, in the meantime taking into consideration the interest of trie College and of teaching in the Dravyagun Department authorised the petitioner to work against the said post of Professor in the under-graduate level as he was the seniormost Reader in Dravyagun department. In fact, an order dated 11th February, 1982 was passed asking petitioner to work on the said post of professor. In fact, an order dated 11th February, 1982 was passed asking petitioner to work on the said post of professor. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner started regularly working against the sanctioned post of Professor in the Dravyagun Department at the under-graduate level in the Government Ayurvedic College and he also conducted internal and external examination of the under-graduate faculty in the said capacity and also participated in all meetings concerning teaching of the under-graduate faculty. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of November, 1986 the case of the petitioner alongwith three others for promotion to the post of Professor was sent by the State government to the Bihar Public Service Commission for their concurrence. In the proposal for the promotion of the petitioner which was sent by the health Department dated 4-11-1986 to the Commission it was pointed out that the petitioner was the seniormost teacher in the Dravyagun Department of the said College. To the said proposal sent by the department, the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service commission (hereinafter referred to as the said Commission) was sought to be obtained. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the said Commission these facts are not denied. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the proposal was sent in the month of November, 1986 but because of certain deliberate laches on the part of the State Government and also on the part of the said commission the promotion of the petitioner was not ordered and the order was deliberately kept pending. 6. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the delay caused by the State Government and the said commission was deliberate, inasmuch as, the State Government wanted to promote another Junior Reader, namely, Dr. Baliram, who was Reader of dravyagun along with the petitioner even though the said Dr. Baliram is junior to the petitioner. 7. In this writ petition Dr. Baliram has not been made a party. Therefore, this Court is unable to consider any allegation relating to dr. Baliram. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by the said Commission it has been stated that several attempts were made by the said Commission to hold its meeting for considering the proposal relating to the promotion of the petitioner. Baliram has not been made a party. Therefore, this Court is unable to consider any allegation relating to dr. Baliram. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by the said Commission it has been stated that several attempts were made by the said Commission to hold its meeting for considering the proposal relating to the promotion of the petitioner. Such meeting was sought to be held on 13-2-1987, 21-3- 1987, 5-10-1987 and 29-7-1988 and again on 27-1-1989 but on all these dates effective meeting could not be held for non co-operation of the health Department of the State of bihar. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State no positive stand has been taken, as to why the State Govenrmenl could not cooperate with the said Commission in the matter of sending all papers and particulars about the petitioner and other incumbents whose cases were to be considered to the post of Professor and why the Slate Government did not attend the meetings called by the said Commission and as such this Court is of the view that the consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor got delayed due to the lethargic attitude taken by the State Government authorities. Ultimately, however, the petitioner was promoted along with the said Dr. Baliram to the post of Professor Dravyagun in under-graduate level by an order dated 19th February, 1990. Copy of the said order has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed a Professor in dravyagun and the said Dr. Baliram was appointed Professor in the department of Shalya (Surgery ). 9. It is not in dispute that right from 11th February, 1982 the petitioner was discharging the function of Professor, Dravyagun in the Government ayurvedic College, Patna, without any complaint and his proposal for promotion to the said post was sent by the health Department Government of bihar to the said Commission in the month of November, 1986, but there was inordinate delay in passing the order of promotion and it could be passed only in the month of February, 1990 as stated above. 10. 10. The aforesaid promotion which has been granted to the petitioner on the said post of Professor of Dravyagun has not been granted with retrospective effect and the same has been granted only from the date of the order, i. e.19th February, 1990 disregarding the fact that the petitioner has been working on the said post since february, 1982 and his case for promotion after being approved was pending with the appropriate authority since november, 1986 for mere concurrence. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the court is of the view that the Governmental authority has not accorded a fair treatment to the petitioner in the matter or consideration of the case of the petitioner on the said post of Professor of Dravyagun. It is well known that to get a fair consideration for promotion in Government services is a fundamental right. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is the seniormost reader in the Department of dravyagun. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was actually doing the job in the promotional post since 1982 and his case for promotion after it is cleared by the State Government was pending with the said Commission for its concurrence since November, 1986. Therefore, denying the petitioner the benefit of the said promotion with effect from November, 1986 is an unreasonable and unfair act on the part of the State Government. 12. Promise of equality and fair treatment has been guaranteed under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same has been breached in this case by the action of the respondents. While considering the principle behind the aforesaid guarantee of equality, the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent Government printing Press V/s. Belliapa reported in a. I. R.1979 Supreme Court page 429, came to the conclusion that the fairness based on reasons is the essence of the guarantee epitomised under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India (See AIR 1979 S. C. page-429 at page 434 ). 13. In the undisputed facts of this case this Court finds that fairness and reasonableness are sadly lacking in the action of the Government when it has not granted promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor dravyagun from an earlier date. 14. 13. In the undisputed facts of this case this Court finds that fairness and reasonableness are sadly lacking in the action of the Government when it has not granted promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor dravyagun from an earlier date. 14. This court is aware of the position that it cannot promote a person to a paticular post from a particular date but then the Court can, and in appropriate cases it should, in exercise of us jurisdiction under Article 226, give suitable directions to the authorities for correcting and modifying their action when the justice of the case so demands. 15. In the instant case, the least that the authorities should have done was to promote the petitioner to the post of Professor, Dravyagun with effect from November, 1986 when the government sent its proposal for promotion of the petitioner to the said post to the said Commission. However, the petitioner has now retired with effect from 31st January, 1994. 16. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court directs that even though no promotion was given to the petitioner to the said post of professor, Dravyagun with effect from the month of November, 1986 but all the benefits of the said promotion including the pay scale and all consequential allowances of the post of professor, Dravyagun must be made available to the petitioner with effect from the month of December, 1986. 17. While passing the order this court has also taken into consideration the fact that even before the order of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Professor, Dravyagun by an order dated 25th January, 1990 the petitioner was asked to officiate on a still higher post of Principal in Rajkiya Maharani rameshwar Bhartiya Chikitsa Vigyan sansthan, Mohanpur, Darbhanga and pursuant to the said order dated 25th january, 1990 the petitioner stated working on the said post and retired from the said post on 31st January, 1994. This shows that the petitioner was not only allowed to officiate in the post of Professor for about eight years but also was allowed to officiate on a still higher post of Principal for four years prior to his retirement. This shows that the petitioner was not only allowed to officiate in the post of Professor for about eight years but also was allowed to officiate on a still higher post of Principal for four years prior to his retirement. In that view of the matter it will be very unjust and unfair if he is not given the benefit of promotion to the post of Professor, dravyagun, with effect from the month of December, 1986. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions, one of Punjab and Hariyana High Court and other of Patna High Court. The full Bench decision of the Punjab High court in the case of B. K. Bhalla and others V/s. The State of Punjab reported in 1981 Labour and Industrial Cases page-676, it has laid down that the state Government can give promotion with retrospective effect unless it is prohibited by rules or regulations. The said proposition is not disputed by anybody. 19. In the instant case, the State government has not given the said retrospective promotion, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is directing the state Government to give the benefit of the said promotion to the petitioner with retrospective date which is from december, 1986. The other decision is one in the case of Dr. Suchit Kumar sinha V/s. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1995 (1) B. L. J. page 54, which is a single Bench decision and against which an appeal is pending. As an appeal is pending against the decision, this Court does not wish to rely on the ratio of the said judgment in the case of Suchit Kumar Sinha (supra ). 20. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court directs the respondents to extend to the petitioner all benefits of promotion to the post of Professor, dravyagun in under-graduate level with effect from December, 1986 and also directs the respondents to pay the petitioner difference of pay which consequently arisses a result of such extension of benefit of promotion to the petitioner. Such difference of pay most be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. 21. Such difference of pay most be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. 21. Since the petitioner has retired from the service with effect from 31st january, 1994 his retirement benefit should also be refixed along with pension, gratuity and other benefits by virtue of extension of the benefit of promotion to the post of Professor, dravyagun on the aforesaid basis extended to him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. This writ petition is thus allowed to the extent indicate above. There will be no order as to costs.