ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners who have been promoted vide Notification Nos. 186 and 187, both dated 1.7.2009 from State Subordinate Education Service Cadre (Primary Branch) to State Education Service, Class-II (Inspecting Branch) with retrospective effect have sought for direction upon the respondents to grant the financial benefits accruing from the date of said promotions. 2. The undisputed facts as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioners were appointed in Subordinate Education Service (Primary Branch) in the erstwhile State of Bihar and after bifurcation of the State of Bihar on 15.11.2000, the petitioners have been allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand. After being posted to the cadre to the State of Jharkhand, when the case of the petitioners for promotion was not considered one Sri Banke Bihari Singh belonging to the cadre of the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 6250 of 2006 for grant of promotion of Jharkhand Education Service, Class-II in accordance with the provisions enshrined in Jharkhand Education Service (Class-II), Recruitment Rules, 1973 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 5.12.2006 with direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioners for promotion and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The aforesaid order dated 5.12.2006 was not complied with by the concerned respondent. Therefore, Contempt application being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 248 of 2007 was filed and the said contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.2.2009 for implementation of the order within a period of 4 weeks. In deference to direction passed by the Court in W.P.(S) No. 6250 of 2006 and Cont. Case (Civil) No. 248 of 2007, the petitioner along with others were promoted to the Jharkhand Education Service, Class-II (Inspecting Branch) by Notification Nos. 186 and 187, both dated 1.7.2009 vide Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that vide notification dated 2.11.1999 and 4.11.1999 vide Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ application, it would be evident that the similarly situated person those have been promoted to Bihar Education Service Class-II have been given financial benefits with retrospective effect. It has been averred in the writ application that vide notification dated 2.11.1999 and 4.11.1999 vide Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ application, it would be evident that the similarly situated person those have been promoted to Bihar Education Service Class-II have been given financial benefits with retrospective effect. Thereafter, one Sri Banke Bihari Singh, the President petitioners' association being aggrieved for not getting the financial benefits from an anterior date on which the promotion orders have been effected, submitted representation dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-7 to the writ application for ventilating the grievances of the petitioner and others. Due to sphinx like silence on the part of respondents, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that though, the petitioners are entitled to monetary benefits accruing from the date of promotions vide Notification Nos. 186 and 187, both dated 1.7.2009 but the respondents have denied to extend such benefits of promotion purportedly in view of Rule 74 of Finance Rule and Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code as disclosed in the counter-affidavit and the stand of the respondents in denying the monetary benefits amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the belated promotion which have been given to the petitioner was due to the laches and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the respondents and the petitioners ought not to be at fault on that amount. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to decision as reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 519 in the case of Rana Raghunath Pd. Singh and another v. The State of Bihar and others at para Nos. 18 to 24 and 28, 1999 (1) PLJR 272 (Ranjit Sahay Jamuar and another v. State of Bihar and others) at para Nos. 7 and 8 and also reported in 2012 (2) JCR 296 (Jhr) in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and others at para Nos. 8 to 11. 4. 18 to 24 and 28, 1999 (1) PLJR 272 (Ranjit Sahay Jamuar and another v. State of Bihar and others) at para Nos. 7 and 8 and also reported in 2012 (2) JCR 296 (Jhr) in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and others at para Nos. 8 to 11. 4. Repudiating the contentions raised in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 wherein reliance has been placed under Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Finance Rule and it has further been contended that an employee is entitled for pay benefit from the date of which he takes charge of the office. 5. Learned JC to SC-II for the respondent-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit has assiduously submitted that since the petitioners were promoted from anterior date but from the date of assuming charge in the promotional posts they are entitled to the salary attached to the such posts. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be construed that the petitioners have discharged the duties of the promotional posts from the anterior date than to the actual date of assuming the charge of promotional posts. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on records, the petitioners have been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons :- (I) Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted to the State Education Service, Class-II (Inspecting Branch) vide Notification Nos. 186 and 187, both dated 1.7.2009 and the said promotion has been given with retrospective effect. In the said promotion order, a rider has been attached to Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 of the promotion notification that the benefit of promotion would be available to the petitioners from the date of assuming or taking charge of the promotional posts. Being aggrieved by such a rider and due to non-consideration of the representations, the instant writ application has been filed and on perusal of the response of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. it would appear that the respondent-authority by relying upon Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules have denied the petitioners' benefits from such promotion given them with retrospective effect. it would appear that the respondent-authority by relying upon Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules have denied the petitioners' benefits from such promotion given them with retrospective effect. (II) For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer Rule 58(a) of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rule which reads as under :- "Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code.-Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of clause (b) of this Rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules.-All authorities which are competent to sanction revision of pay or the grant of concessions to Government servants should bear in mind that retrospective effect should not be given to financial sanctions, except in exceptional circumstances, without the special approval of Government. On perusal of the judgment as reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 272 in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar and another v. State of Bihar and others cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Court by incorporating the Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules has been pleased to hold as such in para Nos. 7 and 8 of the said judgment which reads as under :- "7. The stand taken by the respondent authorities and the reliance placed on the aforesaid rule is not acceptable to me. In my view the provisions of Rule 58 of the Service Code and Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules have no application to the case of the petitioners for the simple reason that those rules envisage promotions given in the normal course of administration and at due time when the right of promotion accrued to the concerned employee. The two rules do not, by any stretch of imagination, deal with cases where promotions were given not at the due time but with retrospective effect not for any fault on the part of the concerned employee but due to the laches and mistakes committed by the department. 8. The two rules do not, by any stretch of imagination, deal with cases where promotions were given not at the due time but with retrospective effect not for any fault on the part of the concerned employee but due to the laches and mistakes committed by the department. 8. In a number of decisions, this Court has observed that an employee being given promotion with retrospective effect cannot be denied the material benefits accruing from the promotion and the position is now well-established. If any authority is needed on this point one may see 1990(2) PLJR 248 Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar and others." (III) In the light of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that an employee being given promotion with retrospective effect cannot be denied the material benefits accruing from the date of promotion and this position is now well-established and the judgment on the similar issue which has been reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 44 , Md. Hafiz v. State of Bihar and others. (IV) Therefore, in my considered view, the claim of the petitioners with regard to claim of financial benefits with retrospective effect can be sustained in the light of the decisions reported in Ranjit Sahay Jamuar, Md. Hafiz and in view of the judgment referred in Rana Raghunath (supra). 7. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs and in the light of the judicial pronouncement as has been mentioned (supra), the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders for grant of financial benefits accruing from the date of promotion of the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.