JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the D.V.C. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of direction upon the respondent-company for grant of consequential monetory benefits of Post retirement dues pursuant to the order dated 27.1.2006 issued by the Assistant Director(P), D.V.C. (Respondent No. 4) by which he has been promoted in the pay scale of Rs.5800-180-10,480/-. The second prayer of the petitioner is for direction upon the respondent-company not to deduct any amount as penal rent from the retirement benefits or salary of petitioner as the petitioner has retained only one quarter of the corporation, which was duly allotted to him and also direction for the consequent order for refund of the said amount. 3. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit which has been further rejoinded by the petitioner as well. Respondents have supported their action in the counter affidavit and at the same time stated that the petitioner cannot get the benefit of the said order of promotion dated 27.1.2006, since the petitioner retired on 31.1.2006 without actually assuming charge of the said promoted post. Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner as well that the promotional order dated 27.1.2006 was served upon him just after the day of his retirement i.e. on 1.2.2006. A feeble attempt has been made of alleged bias by the respondent upon the petitioner, however petitioner has not substantiated it in the averments made in the writ petition nor anyone has been made party by name as respondent. In any case the law on this is well settled that a person is entitled to get the benefit of the post to which he is promoted only from the date on which he actually assumes charge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1993(1) P.L.J.R. 519 to support his submission that in such case where promotional orders are issued with retrospective effect, the employee concerned is entitled to all the monetary benefits effective from the said date. However, the said judgment is of little help to the petitioner, since neither the promotional order was effected retrospectively nor the order was served upon the petitioner during the period of his service till 31.1.2006. However, the said judgment is of little help to the petitioner, since neither the promotional order was effected retrospectively nor the order was served upon the petitioner during the period of his service till 31.1.2006. The petitioner, admittedly, was served with the copy of the promotional order after retirement by which he claimed to be entitled for higher scale of Rs. 5800-10,480 as the pay scale of P..G. Teacher, History under the respondent-company. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law discussed herein above and facts of the case, the claim of the petitioner for grant of monetary benefits pursuant to the said order dated 27.1.2006 and served to him on 1.2. 2006, after the date of retirement i.e. 31.1.2006 is not sustainable in law as well as facts. 5. So far as the issue relating to charge of penal rent is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide order dated 30th August,2004 the Estate Officer directed him to vacate the quarter at Chandrapura being occupied by him even after his transfer to Konar Middle School in the year 1991. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation on 30.11.2004 before the Estate Officer that he has regularly submitted no accommodation certificate, however penal rent was realized from him. He has further submitted that he did not avail accommodation at Konar and only kept accommodation at CTPS due to ongoing study of his son and daughter, pursuant to the letter dated 22.12.1997 issued by Senior Divisional Engineer(C) T Division. However, it is pleaded that the respondents have chosen to charge penal rent and issued annexure-4 by which the a sum of Rs. 6714/-has been shown to be charged . On perusal of annexure-4 it appears that the said order only relates to the penal rent from January 2006 to 30th June, 2006. The document relating to the charge of penal rent of the earlier period has not been annexed. The petitioner, however, seeks indulgence of this court for being relieved of the charge of penal rent as he has been enjoying one quarter in C.T.P.S. under the authority's letter dated 22.12.1997(annexure-3/1). 6. This court cannot express its opinion over the matter in the absence of proper pleading and order of the penal rent not being annexed thereto,. The petitioner, however, seeks indulgence of this court for being relieved of the charge of penal rent as he has been enjoying one quarter in C.T.P.S. under the authority's letter dated 22.12.1997(annexure-3/1). 6. This court cannot express its opinion over the matter in the absence of proper pleading and order of the penal rent not being annexed thereto,. However, petitioner will have liberty to approach the competent authority concerned to raise this part of the grievance of penal rent for the period as raised by him by way of an application containing all the necessary details in the prescribed format. The said competent authority may consider the grievance of the petitioner relating to charge of penal rent and pass an order in accordance with law and rules and regulations of the organization, of course taking into account the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has occupied only one quarter and that too with due permission from the Senior Divisional Engineer, T.Division, Konar. 7. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Petition disposed of.