RADHA KRISHNA CHIUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court when many a persons junior to him came to be granted promotion on the post of Joint Secretary or equivalent post by the Respondent State with effect from 8.11.2004. There were some other reliefs as well which were made in the writ application but since they have been allowed, they need not be taken note of. What is left to be decided is the claim of the Petitioner with regard to the monetary benefit occurring based on the subsequent notification by virtue of which Petitioner too was granted promotion from 8.11.2004, the date his juniors were promoted, without monetary benefit.

(2.) Submission of the learned Counsel is that there was nothing against the Petitioner which prevented the Respondents from considering his case for promotion when cases of other persons were taken up, admittedly juniors to the Petitioner. The whole exercise was done to the detriment of the Petitioner only to cause him prejudice and loss by non-grant of benefit of promotion vis-a-vis his juniors in service. Learned Counsel further submits that since the omission or the fault lay with the Respondent State in non-grant of benefit of promotion to the Petitioner at the relevant time, Petitioner cannot be made to suffer and in this regard he relies on two decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of Md. Hafiz v. State of Bihar, 2003 2 PLJR 44 and Dr. Parasnath v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1990 2 PLJR 248. Contention of the learned Counsel is that in both the decisions in similar circumstance, decision to grant notional promotion without monetary benefit was interfered with and direction was given to the Respondents to give benefit to the Petitioners of those cases for the reasons rendered therein.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further brings a glaring case of one Jai Mangal Paswan who was junior to the Petitioner and was granted promotion subsequently on 22.1.2008 with effect from 8.11.2004. In the case of Jai Mangal Paswan the Respondents gave him said promotion alongwith monetary benefit but the Petitioner has been singled out for the treatment which obviously is discriminatory in the face of the decisions taken by the Respondents.