Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. Initially, the petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the Government notification, by which the respondents 5 to 7 were posted/promoted as the Dy. Director, Mines. However, on 17-1-1997 when this matter was finally heard Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the earlier order of this court in the case of gurusharan Pd. Singh, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming his promotion, respondent Nos.5 to 7 may not be necessary parties in case this court finds that the case of the petitioner stands on identical footing in view of the availability of regular vacancy. Accordingly, on permission granted by this Court,. he deleted the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that he has been arbitrarily denied of his due promotion initially as District Mining officer with effect from 1-2-88 and consequently as Dy. Director, Mines since before his juniors have been promoted and/or posted in the said capacity. Accordingly, it has been prayed that a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to consider and notify the petitioner as district Mining Officer with effect from 1-2-88 in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-4500, and to promote him to the post of dy. Director, Mines in the scale of Rs.3000-4500, in accordance with the seniority. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Mining Officer vide notification no.5988 dated 16-10-73 and joined the said post on 27-10-73. He was confirmed in the said capacity with effect from 1-3-76 and was allowed to Cross efficiency Bar with effect from 17-10-79. The Finance Department issued notification No.3/prc-3/81/f-10770 dated 3012-81 (annexure-3) providing for grant of junior selection grade as well as time-bound promotion on 9-5-83. The State Government issued notification with respect to grant of time-bound promotion by conversion or interchanging of the post on completion of ten years if satisfactory service if no selection grade post is created. The case of the petitioner was also considered, but was, however, not found fit for promotion. 4. The State Government issued notification with respect to grant of time-bound promotion by conversion or interchanging of the post on completion of ten years if satisfactory service if no selection grade post is created. The case of the petitioner was also considered, but was, however, not found fit for promotion. 4. The petitioner filed C. W. J. C. No.4768 of 87 and a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 8-1-88 passed in the said writ case, directed the State government to dispose of the petitioners representation within four months and in the meantime, if a post be available, it should be kept reserved to be filled by the petitioner in case his representation was accepted and he was found fit for promotion. The departmental Promotion Committee met on 5-10-88, in which it was resolved that the case of the petitioner be kept pending and a post was also reserved for him. A final seniority list of Asst. Mining officer was published vide notification No.5438 dated 19-8-88, in which the petitioner was placed at S1.2. A photocopy of the said seniority list is annexure 3 and the names of Sarvshree gurusharan Pd. Singh, Jayant Kumar choudhary and Rajendra Kumar were placed at S1. Nos.4, 5 and 7, respectively below the petitioner. On 23-2-92 the departmental Promotion Committee consisting of the Members Board of revenue, Secretary, Mines and Geology department and Director, Mines, Bihar considered the case of the petitioner along with the aforesaid persons including gurusharan Pd. Singh for promotion in junior selection grade of Asst. Mining Officer, which was equivalent to district Mining Officer and recommended their cases for the said promotion with effect from their due date as first time bound promotion. After vigilance clearance and approval of the chief Minister, the petitioner and two others were promoted vide notification dated 23-10-83 subject to confirmation by the Finance Department with effect from 18-11-93. 5. Two posts of Dy. Director, mines fell vacant due to retirement of sri R. P. Singh and Sri B. B. Lal. The matter was taken up and the petitioner was found fit for promotion as acting dy. Director. However, the notification for such promotion could not be issued and in the meantime of 16-5-95, the state Government, vide notification No.1703, dated 16-5-95 notified that finance Department has confirmed their promotion. Thereafter on 4-11-95 two more posts fell vacant. 6. The matter was taken up and the petitioner was found fit for promotion as acting dy. Director. However, the notification for such promotion could not be issued and in the meantime of 16-5-95, the state Government, vide notification No.1703, dated 16-5-95 notified that finance Department has confirmed their promotion. Thereafter on 4-11-95 two more posts fell vacant. 6. Thereafter, the matter for promotion was taken up in the meeting dated 4th November, 95 to fill up the said vacancies when the claim of the petitioner was side-tracked on the ground that he was not promoted on the regular post of District Mining Officer. Having learnt about the aforesaid fact, he filed a detailed representation on 20-6-96 demanding for consideration of his case for promotion before any junior person was granted the same, because the D. P. C. decided to make the promotion of the petitioner and the above three persons after conversion/interchanging the post to District Mining Officer and the promotions were made on regular basis following all due processes. Out of the aforementioned three persons Sarvshree Jayant Kumar choudhary and Rajendra Kumar were given charge of Dy. Director, Mines, by way of transfer and posting in their own pay-scale, but the transfer and posting of Rajendra Kumar could not materialised and respondent No.6 jayant Kumar Choudhary took charge. Gouri Shankar Pd. Singh, who is placed below the petitioner at S1. No.4 in the seniority list filed application bearing c. W. J. C. No.10754 of 1995 challenging the notification of posting of the aforementioned two persons and also sought for a mandamus to fill up the vacancy in regular manner after considering his case. 7. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State and it was stated that the petitioner of that case was denied promotion as District Mining Officer by the Commission as well as by the D. P. C. on account of pendency of some departmental enquiry, which was however, seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it was further stated that his case was recommended by the D. P. C. on 5-10-88 on the basis of papers available and the post was kept reserved for him as well as other Asst. Mining Officer. It was also stated that the matter for promotion of the petitioner of that case as District mining Officer had not been closed. Mining Officer. It was also stated that the matter for promotion of the petitioner of that case as District mining Officer had not been closed. On consideration of his seniority as well as the fact of that case that if at all the petitioner of that case had been kept deprived of posting as District Mining officer not because of his fault, he could not have been validly denied due promotion of Dy. Director. The Court did not find appropriate the action of the State-respondents in granting promotion/posting to juniors to the petitioner of that case to the higher post and denying the same to the said petitioner merely on account of prolonging the disciplinary proceeding for over eight long years. It was also found that no rule or even Government decision was brought to the notice of the Court to show that for making in-charge Dy. Director Mines7 one must complete ten years of his posting as district Mining Officer. Accordingly, after considering the facts and circumstances and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the Court disposed of the writ-petition with the direction to the respondent State and its officers to finalise the departmental proceeding if any pending against the petitioner within one month, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for posting/promotion as Incharge Dy. Director, mines with effect from due date when his juniors were promoted. The respondents were directed to issue order/notification granting due promotion to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 8. Thereafter the said Gurusharan pd. Singh (petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.19754 of 95) vide notification No.4412 dated 15-10-96, contained in annexure-13 was granted promotion against the vacant post of District Mining Officer with effect from 1-2-88 in anticipation of the completion of other formalities and was also posted as Dy. Director, mines in the headquarters. However, when the case of the present petitioner was not considered and he was deprived of his legitimate claim for promotion as district Mining Officer with effect from 1-2-88 and for posting/promotion as Dy. Director, Mines with effect from a date since his junior Gurusharan Pd. Singh was promoted/posted, he filed the present writ application. 9. However, when on 27-11-96 another notification, contained in an-nexure 14 was issued posting the said gurusharan Pd. Singh as Dy. Director, headquarters and Sri Rajendra Kumar as Dy. Director, Mines with effect from a date since his junior Gurusharan Pd. Singh was promoted/posted, he filed the present writ application. 9. However, when on 27-11-96 another notification, contained in an-nexure 14 was issued posting the said gurusharan Pd. Singh as Dy. Director, headquarters and Sri Rajendra Kumar as Dy. Director, Mines, Dumka in their own pay scale of District Mining Officer, and further posting the petitioner as District Mining Officer in the office of the Dy-Director, Mines, Patna, the petitioner filed LA. No.340 of % for stay of the said notification. 10. Earlier a counter-affidavit sworn by the Under Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of bihar was filed, in which the facts stated in the writ petition are not disputed. It is, however, stated that the petitioner was granted first time bound promotion provisionally with effect from 23-10-83 after completion of ten years service in terms of the Government resolution. It was further admitted that the scale of pay of Asst. Mining Officer, who had been given time-bound promotion, is the same as that of a District Mining officer. The petitioner was given first time-bound promotion and not regular promotion as District Mining Officer and as such, it was stated that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. Director of Mining, for which minimum qualifying period of ten years as District Mining officer has been prescribed by the government. It was also stated that others have been authorised to perform their duties of the Dy. Director, Mines, in their own scale of pay, but since the petitioner was not granted regular promotion in the post of District Mining Officer, he was not authorised to perform the duties of the Dy. Director, mines. It was. however, further stated that the representation of the petitioner is sub judice, because he filed the present writ application. 11. On 2-1-97 when this matter was taken up, a prayer for one weeks adjournment was made on behalf of the respondents so that in the meantime if the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court, as contained in annexure-11, the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed. The matter was adjourned to 9th January, 1997. On 2-1-97 when this matter was taken up, a prayer for one weeks adjournment was made on behalf of the respondents so that in the meantime if the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court, as contained in annexure-11, the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed. The matter was adjourned to 9th January, 1997. It was again taken up on 10th January, 1997 when the learned P. P. for Mines appearing on behalf of the respondents did not dispute that the case of the petitioner was covered by the judgment of this Court as contained in annexure 11. In fact he admitted that the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing in view of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the learned for the respondents. However, this Court deprecated the casual approach in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion in the light of the order of this Court, contained in annexure-11, and as a last indulgence, the matter was adjourned to friday next (17-1-97) giving another opportunity to the respondents to come out with the notification redressing the grievance of the petitioner. Instead of coming out with the notification redressing the grievance of the petitioner, another counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 sworn by the Additional Secretary, Mines (respondent No.3) was filed. If the said counter-affidavit it is stated that inadvertently, some of important facts could not be brought to the notice of this court in the earlier counter-affidavit. It is stated that the main claim of the petitioner is for promotion with effect from 1-2-88 as the regular District Mining Officer in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, which can be given only after obtaining recommendation of the D. P. C. and the D. P. C. in its meeting dated 10-7-89 after critically examining his case found him unfit for the aforesaid promotion. A photo copy of the proceeding of the said meeting of the d. P. C. has been annexed as annexure A. 12. A photo copy of the proceeding of the said meeting of the d. P. C. has been annexed as annexure A. 12. It is stated that in the earlier counter-affidavit it was mentioned that the D. P. C. in its meeting held on 23-3-92 had given time-bound scale to the petitioner in view of the Government resolution No.10770, dated 30-12-81, but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the has been given promotion in the next higher rank, rather that was simply monitory benefit given to the petitioner on completion of his ten years service. As regards the promotion of Sri Gurusharan Pd. Singh it is contended that he was notified as Dy. Director of Mines in his own pay-scale as District Mining Officer in compliance of the order of this court and in that view of the matter there is vast difference between the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the case of Sri gurusharan Pd. Singh. The petitioner was declared unfit for promotion on consideration of his adverse character roll, whereas one post was kept reserved for Gurusharan Pd. Singh. 13. Thus, from. the counter-affidavit is the only ground to deny relief as prayed by the petitioner is that he was found unfit by the I. P. C. vide resolution contained in annexure A. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said ground is wholly untenable inasmuch as the case of the petitioner along with five others including gurusharan Pd. Singh was considered a fresh by the D. P. C. consisting of the Member, Board of Revenue, bihar, Secretary, Mines and Geology department and the Director, Mines, bihar, in its meeting on 3-3-92, who found all the six persons to be fit for promotion in the junior selection grade of Asst. Mining Officer, which was equivalent to the post of District Mining Officer from due date for time-bound promotion. 14. This Court in the case of gurusharan Pd. Singh, on consideration of the aforementioned recommendation of the D. P. C. , which was annexed as an-nexure-6 to the writ petition filed by Sri gurusharan Pd. Singh and on consideration of the legal position with respect to the equivalence of post as well as low applicable, held that the action of the respondent-State in putting junior persons as incharge of the office of the Dy. Singh and on consideration of the legal position with respect to the equivalence of post as well as low applicable, held that the action of the respondent-State in putting junior persons as incharge of the office of the Dy. Director in suppression of the superior legitimate claim of the petitioner of that case could not be appreciated. Accordingly, this Court directed to finalise the departmental proceeding within one month, failing which the petitioner of that case was held to be entitled for posting/promotion as District Mining Officer and consequently as incharge by. Director. Mines with effect from due date when his juniors were promoted and the respondents were accordingly, directed to issue order/notification granting promotion within a week thereafter, which was issued by the State Government as contained in annexure-13. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner was earlier considered by the D. P. C. for promotion as district Mining Officer and he was found unfit vide annexure-A, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 16. I fail to appreciate the said stand on behalf of the respondents. It is not disputed that the petitioner is senior to said Sri Gurusharan Pd. Singh as is also evident from the seniority list, as well as the proceeding of the D. P. C. contained in annexures 3 and 6, respectively. Bare perusal of annexure-6 would show that the entire matter was considered by the D. P. C. on 23-3-92 for the grant of time-bound promotion for all the six officers including the petitioner and said Sri Gurusharan Pd. Singh on completion of ten years of their service as Asst. Mining Officer, during which they did not get the benefit of the same. The D. P. C. on consideration of the service-record, as well as the Vigilance clearance etc. of all the six officers found them fit for promotion in the junior selection grade of Asst. Mining officer, which was equivalent to District mining Officer from a date, when their time bound promotions were due. An-nexure-A, which is a photo copy of the resolution of the D. P. C. held on 10-7-1989 does not disclose the reason as to why the petitioner was found unfit. Mining officer, which was equivalent to District mining Officer from a date, when their time bound promotions were due. An-nexure-A, which is a photo copy of the resolution of the D. P. C. held on 10-7-1989 does not disclose the reason as to why the petitioner was found unfit. However, the D. P. C. in the subsequent meeting held on 23-3-92 found the petitioner fit for promotion from due date. Thus, the earlier so-called decision of the D. P. C. stood superseded by the later one. 17. In any view of the matter, gurusharan Pd. Singh who is un-disputedly junior to the petitioner and against whom departmental proceeding was also initiated and pending has been granted promotion as District Mining officer with effect from 1-2-88 and consequently promoted/posted as Dy. Director, Mines, preferably vide notification contained in annexure-13. 18. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the subsequent plea taken in the second counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is a mala. fide one and this court, vide order dated 10-1-97 deprecated the attitude of the respondent in not redressing the genuine grievance and giving appropriate relief to Government servants, unless the Government servants move this Court by filing writ petitions and order is passed granting him relief. This victimising attitude of respondent no.3 in making an attempt to mislead the Court by taking baseless pleae to deny legitimate claim of the petitioner deserves to be deprecated. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner regular promotions as District Mining Officer with effect from 2-1-88 pursuant to the recommendation of the D. P. C. contained in annexure-6, and consequently to post him on the post of Dy. Director, Mines, within a period of two weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this order and consider his case for regular promotion on the said post along with all other eligible candidates, failing which this Court shall consider to initiate contempt proceedings. Order Accordingly.