ORDER : 1. The petitioner has alleged willful violation of the order dated 30.01.2017 passed in W.P (S) No.6625 of 2016 which was filed by him seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant him Promotion/Grade in terms of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993. 2. The petitioner has pleaded that he who was granted Graduate Trained Scale, that is, Grade-IV w.e.f 01.07.1992 became eligible for grant of Grade-VI w.e.f 01.07.2010 under Rule 5(3) and subsequently for Grade-VII. 3. In view of the order passed in W.P (S) No.6135 of 2015 in the proceeding of which the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand has filed an affidavit, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take steps in the matter in the light of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.6135 of 2015. However, by the time a final decision was taken on grant of promotion in Grade-VI and Grade-VII to the teachers like the petitioner in terms of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2016. 4. It is not denied that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for promotion in the higher Grades. 5. This is the common ground that promotion to a teacher in terms of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 is granted on consideration of the eligibility of the candidates vis-a-vis the vacant posts. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the contemnors, it is admitted that two teachers juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to Grade-VII, however, the petitioner could not be extended benefit of promotion in the higher Grades as he had by that time superannuated from service; the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee is dated 28.01.2017 by which 14 teachers working in Grade-IV were promoted in Grade-VII. The contemnors have taken a plea that those 14 teachers were in service at that time and in terms of the extant rules promotion with a retrospective date cannot be granted. The respondent-contemnors have relied on the government letter dated 04.04.1985 which refers to Rule-58 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and Rule-74 of Bihar Financial Rules to contend that financial benefit of a promotional post can be granted to the government employee from the date he has assumed the charge of the post. 6. The respondent-contemnors have relied on the government letter dated 04.04.1985 which refers to Rule-58 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and Rule-74 of Bihar Financial Rules to contend that financial benefit of a promotional post can be granted to the government employee from the date he has assumed the charge of the post. 6. In essence, the stand taken by the respondent-contemnors is that the petitioner who had superannuated from service before his claim for promotion was considered, cannot be granted promotion in higher Grades. 7. In the beginning, when notice was issued on 12.12.2018, the judgment in “Union of India and another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others” reported in (2010) 4 SCC 290 was referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate that the decision not to promote the petitioner in the higher grades was irrational and illegal. 8. In “Union of India and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “35. The Court must keep in mind the constitutional obligation of both the appellants/Central Government as also the State Government. Both the Central Government and the State Government are to act as model employers, which is consistent with their role in a welfare State. 36. It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 37. In Govt. Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa a three-Judge Bench of this Court in relation to service dispute, may be in a different context, held that the essence of guarantee epitomised under Articles 14 and 16 is “fairness founded on reason”. 38. It is, therefore, clear that legitimate expectations of the respondents of being considered for promotion have been defeated by the acts of the Government and if not of the Central Government, certainly the unreasonable inaction on the part of the Government of State of Uttar Pradesh stood in the way of the respondents' chances of promotion from being fairly considered when it is due for such consideration and delay has made them ineligible for such consideration. Now the question which is weighing on the conscience of this Court is how to fairly resolve this controversy.” 9. In the first place, promotion in different Grades under the Rules is not promotion as the expression “promotion” is known in the common parlance. Admittedly, different Grades are not different and distinct posts except that on grant of Grade-VI and Grade-VII a teacher becomes eligible for the post of Head-master. The promotion in different Grades under the Bihar Rules of 1993 is primarily grant of higher pay-scales. Therefore, there is no application of Rule 58 of the Code or Rule 74 of the Financial Rules. 10. Secondly, it is absurd to plead that promotion from a retrospective date cannot be granted. It is common knowledge that if not always, mostly, promotion is granted from a retrospective date because it relates back to the date of vacancy. It is really rare that against an anticipated vacancy promotion is granted which, of course, again would be effective from the date when the vacancy arises. 11. Thirdly, the petitioner, whose eligibility and suitability for grant of Grade-VII have not been denied and at least two persons junior to him have been granted Grade-VII, has been denied this benefit solely for the reasons attributable to the respondents; it was only after the orders passed by the writ-Court that some semblance of stream-lining the process of promotion was restored. 12. Apparently, the stand taken by the respondent-contemnors is not sustainable. 13. There are a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the law on the subject has been explained; one being in “Major General H.M. Singh, VSM Vs. Union of India and another” reported in (2014) 3 SCC 670 . It has been held that the right to promotion of an employee has attained the status of a constitutional right and the legitimate expectation of a government servant cannot be killed on a ground that by the time a decision was taken the employee had superannuated from service. It has been held that on account of laches and delay if a decision on promotion of an employee could not be taken before the employee had retired, the benefits accruing to the employee shall be accorded to him by granting notional promotion to him which shall be taken into account for calculating the post-retiral benefits to the employee. It has been held that on account of laches and delay if a decision on promotion of an employee could not be taken before the employee had retired, the benefits accruing to the employee shall be accorded to him by granting notional promotion to him which shall be taken into account for calculating the post-retiral benefits to the employee. In “Major General H.M. Singh”, denial of promotion to the Major General to the post of Lt. General – vacancy for the post of Lt. General was available on the date of retirement, has been held illegal. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, with a note of caution to the respondents, this contempt case is closed with a direction to the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand to ensure that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which his post-retiral benefits shall be calculated and paid.