(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to promote him from the cadre of Project Managers and equivalent posts in the scale of Rs. 2200 -4000/ - to the cadre of Functional Managers and equivalent posts in the scale of Rs.3000 -4500/ - in Bihar Industries Services cadre with all consequential benefits with effect from 31.10.1997 i.e. the date from which juniors to the petitioner have been so promoted for which a post was reserved for him till the finalisation of representation, which has been decided by the Government. In pursuance of the order dated 27.1.1998 of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11699 of 1997.
(2.) IT has been claimed that the Government vide order dated 20.3.1998 found adverse remarks false and untrue and withdrew it and no disciplinary action whatsoever was initiated against him and also that he has unblemished career in service. He has also claimed that Lokayukt and Vigilance Department gave clearance in writing which was recorded in the memorandum and post was reserved for his promotion only till the decision on his representation against the adverse remarks, which was decided in his favour.
(3.) WRIT petition was filed on 5.10.2001 and this Court long back on 2.4.2004 after taking note of the stand taken in the counter affidavit that recommendation has already been made and only notification is to be issued about which the counsel for the State was not aware, granted four weeks time on the request of the learned counsel for the Respondents to seek instruction and file supplementary counter affidavit. Thereafter, again on 2.2.2005 on the request of the learned counsel for the State, the matter was passed over so that the State counsel may bring compliance report on record. Till date no compliance report has been brought on record, which itself shows gross callousness on the part of the State authorities besides adopting delaying tactics. It is really unfortunate that State authorities also have behaved in such manner and this Court strongly deprecates their such inaction especially because they have not even woken up after two indulgences granted by this Court. Further, I failed to appreciate the stand taken in the counter affidavit that as per the Rules laid down by the Finance Department circular referred to above, the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefit for back date promotion.