Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 29 (PAT)

Swam Lata Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-08

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the date of promotion of her husband to the post of Under Secretary stands shifted from 22.5.95 to 30th June, 1992 vide notification as contained in Annexure 1 and again he was promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 30th June, 1995 vide notification as contained in Annexure 3 dated 18th January, 1999, consequential benefits have not been given to him. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner superannuated on 31.7.1997 and thereafter the notifications as contained in Annexures 1 and 3 were issued shifting the date of his promotion to the post of Under Secretary and giving him promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary but no monetary benefit has been given to him saying that the promotion has been granted notionally. It is further submitted that even though the husband of the petitioner was promoted nationally, after his superannuation he was entitled to get monetary benefits. Learned counsel also submits that this question has been set at rest by various judgments of this court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. as reported in 1990 (2) P.L.J.R. Page 248 and in the case of Md. Hafiz vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2003 (2) P.L.J.R. Page 44. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein that the petitioner after his superannuation would not be entitled to get monetary benefits in view of rule 58 of Bihar Service Code as the petitioner never assumed charge of the post. Learned counsel appearing on behalf iof the State has also drawn my attention to the notification as contained in Annexure 3 wherein it is stated that the officers duly promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary, will not get the monetary benefits. 5. Now question arises as to whether husband of the petitioner who superannuated much before issuance of the notification of promotion, would be entitled for monetary benefits. 6. In case of Dr. 5. Now question arises as to whether husband of the petitioner who superannuated much before issuance of the notification of promotion, would be entitled for monetary benefits. 6. In case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad (supra) this court observed that the contention of the learned counsel for the State that rule 58 of Bihar Service Code prohibits any grant of pay and allowances on the fictional and notional promotion granted to him is wholly misconceived and ultimately held that the monetary benefits on account of notional promotion cannot be denied to a Government servant. In case of Md. Hafiz (supra) this court again relying upon the case of Paras Nath Prasad (supra) and Shiva Narayan Lal vs. State of Bihar and ors. 1999 (1) P.L.J.R. Page 243 held that on account of notional promotion monetary benefits cannot be denied to a Government servant merely because he had not assumed charge of the promotional post. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal propositions as referred to above, it is held that the husband of the petitioner was entitled to get monetary benefits on account of notional promotion granted to him. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the State authorities are directed to pay consequential benefits to the petitioner on account of notional promotion granted to her husband by virtue of Annexures 1 and 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.