Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 713 (PAT)

Ramendra Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2005-08-10

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 1070 of 2005 is allowed. It will form part of the main writ application. 3. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to promote him notionally on the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Govt. Polytechnic, Saharsa. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that case of the petitioner was considered by the D.P.C. for promotion and necessary recommendation was made. The authorities pursuant to the recommendation of the D.P.C. sought for concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. The Commission in its turn, gave its concurrence vide letter no. 2399 dated 8.1.2004 but the authorities for the reasons best known to them refused to grant promotion to the petitioner on the ground that he had superannuated. It is further submitted by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the petitioner had superannuated notional promotion cannot be denied to him as he is entitled to get the monetary consequential benefits with effect from the due date his juniors were promoted. 5. Learned S.C. 9, with reference to the counter affidavit, submitted that since the petitioner retired, he is not being considered for promotion in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code. 6. The concept of notional promotion is to grant promotion to the petitioner only for payment of consequential benefits on his retirement and merely because he would not be discharging his duties in terms of Rule 58 of the Code, he will not be debarred from getting monetary benefits notionally. This question has been dealt with by various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court and it has been held that irrespective of Rule 58 of the Code a Government Servant if found fit for promotion he would be entitled for consequential monetary benefits notionally. 7. In this connection reference may be made to the cases of Md. Hafiz vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2003(2) PLJR 44 , Sidheshwar Dhari Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2004(1) PLJR 399 and Jiwan Krishna Tiwari and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2004(1) PLJR 552 . 8. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ application is allowed. Order impugned as contained in annexure-8 is set aside. 9. reported in 2003(2) PLJR 44 , Sidheshwar Dhari Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2004(1) PLJR 399 and Jiwan Krishna Tiwari and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2004(1) PLJR 552 . 8. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ application is allowed. Order impugned as contained in annexure-8 is set aside. 9. The authorities are directed to promote the petitioner notionally on the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer with effect from the due date his juniors were promoted and to pay him all the consequential monetary benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.