RAMENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) I .A. No. 1070 of 2005 is allowed. It will form part of the main writ application.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that case of the petitioner was considered by the D.P.C. for promotion and necessary recommendation was made. The authorities pursuant to the recommendation of the D.P.C. sought for concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. The Commission in its turn, gave its concurrence vide letter no. 2399 dated 8.1.2004 but the authorities for the reasons best known to them refused to grant promotion to the petitioner on the ground that he had superannuated. It is further submitted by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the petitioner had superannuated notional promotion cannot be denied to him as he is entitled to get the monetary consequential benefits with effect from the due date his juniors were promoted.