Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 925 (PAT)

Krishnadeo Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-09

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner by this application seeks direction upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Industries/Joint Director, Technical in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and also for the revised scale. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that promotion of the petitioner was due since long and ultimately, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter to be referred to as "DPC"), recommended his case for promotion vide letter dated 25.4.1996 and the Cabinet approved it on 30.7.1996. but, in the meantime, the petitioner superannuated with effect from June 1996. Learned counsel further submitted that since the case of the petitioner was already considered by the DPC and he was recommended for promotion with prior concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "Commission"), the authorities were duly bound to pay the consequential monetary benefit to the petitioner even after his superannuation. 4. The facts are not much in dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that since the Cabinet has granted post facto approval on 30.7.1996, the petitioner would not be entitled for consequential monetary benefit, as he superannuated with effect from 30th June, 1996. 6. Law on this question is almost settled by the judgments of this Court and also of the Apex Court. Reference may be made to the cases of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. [1990(2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 248], Shiva Narayan Lal V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. [1999(1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 243], Food Corporation of India V/s. S.N. Nagarkar (AIR 2002 Supreme Court, 808) and Md. Haf iz V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. [2003(2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 44]. 7. It has been held by this Court and the Apex Court that monetary benefits cannot be denied to a Government servant, who has been granted notional promotion. The petitioner, as it appears, superan nuated after recommendation of the DPC dated 25.4.1996. However, the post facto approval was granted by the Cabinet on 30th July, 1996. 8. In this view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential monetary benefits on account of his notional promotion, as claimed by him. 9. The petitioner, as it appears, superan nuated after recommendation of the DPC dated 25.4.1996. However, the post facto approval was granted by the Cabinet on 30th July, 1996. 8. In this view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential monetary benefits on account of his notional promotion, as claimed by him. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the authorities concerned are directed to pay the monetary consequential benefits to the petitioner on account of his notional promotion, if not already paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.