JUDGEMENT 1. The solitary question, in the present case, is whether the promotion can be denied on basis of pendency of a private complaint case against an employee. In the present case, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered the records and recommended granting of promotion to the petitioner but when it came to the State Government for notifying promotion, instead of petitioner, someone else was notified for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and consequently petitioner, who was Superintending Engineer and had been found fit for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, was denied the said promotion. Petitioner has since superseded. 2. In the counter affidavit filed and in course of argument on behalf of the State, the solitary ground taken to oppose the writ petition is that in a private complaint, cognizance, having been taken, no promotion could be given except sealed cover promotion. Unfortunately, while taking that stand, State seems to have forgotten that the sealed cover promotion procedure was not at all adopted. In fact, petitioner was duly recommended for promotion. I may further notice that so far as private complaints are concerned or private litigation as between parties are concerned, State need not take notice thereof. It is because of that the Service Rule only speaks of police investigation, charge-sheet and cognizance thereon or pending trial pursuant thereto. They do not talk of private complaints. The reason is simple. If State was to take notice of the private complaints then each employee wouid file against other employees or get cases filed against other employees only to see that they are deprived of their promotion and others get benefit thereof. 3. Thus, in my view, on the facts as brought on record, the States action in not notifying petitioner as the Chief Engineer and granting him due promotion, cannot be supported. Petitioner was clearly entitled to promotion as was recommended by the DPC as well. In the meantime, petitioner, having superannuated, for the purposes of retiral dues, petitioners remuneration would be calculated on the basis of his being promoted from the date his junior was promoted by the notification of the Government. 4. Petitioner was clearly entitled to promotion as was recommended by the DPC as well. In the meantime, petitioner, having superannuated, for the purposes of retiral dues, petitioners remuneration would be calculated on the basis of his being promoted from the date his junior was promoted by the notification of the Government. 4. I, accordingly, direct the Government to notify the entitlement of promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in respect of the petitioner from the date his junior was notified and/or from the date the DPC has originally recommended for his promotion but in view of the fact that the petitioner has already superannuated without so being designated, he would be entitled to the financial benefits thereof only from the date of superannuation onwards. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6. The order of this Court must be given effect to within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar.