ORAL ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is looking for promotion to the post of Company Commander for which he was initially shortlisted or considered in terms of Annexure- 1, which was notified on 14th of July, 2008 but for various reasons, the same was not given effect to. Thereafter, promotion orders have been passed leaving out the petitioner from the zone of consideration. Therefore, the writ application has been filed seeking a direction. 3. Petitioner has many grievances including that juniors have been given the benefit of promotion. It has now emerged that one of the reason for non- grant of promotion to the petitioner is that a departmental proceeding no.19 of 2008 was initiated against the petitioner and a punishment order of withholding one increment for six months amounting to one black mark was issued on 3rd of February, 2011. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of decision rendered by a learned single Judge in the case of Sant Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 (2) BLJ 6, the punishment will relate back to the year or the date of such omission when that proceeding was initiated and not from the date of passing of the order of punishment. If that is so, the petitioner was precluded from claiming benefit for three years beginning 2008 and not from the date of punishment. 5. The proposition laid down in the said decision is still a good law. Therefore, such a contention goes in favour of the petitioner. 6. However, the State has taken a stand that the question of promotion of the petitioner is being considered and for the same roster clearance exercise is going on. They have not taken a stand in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner will not be considered. 7. Whatever be the reason for non- inclusion of the petitioner in the promotion list earlier, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner by expediting the matter now and passing an appropriate order taking into consideration the principle enunciated by the learned single Judge in the case of Sant Kumar Sharma (supra) as well as the entitlement of the petitioner which flows from his position being held at present. The decision must be taken preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 8. Writ stands allowed to the extent indicated above.