STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MADAN BIHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as a Family Welfare Worker in the Health Department of the State Government on 23.3.1968. In spite of filing various representations before the authority concerned, when the case of the writ petitioner for his promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator was not considered and promotion was illegally denied to him, he approached this Court in 2000 by filing CWJC No. 8995/2000.

(2.) THIS Court on 12.9.2000 observed that the pendency of the writ petition will not prevent the respondents from considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law. The writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.2001 and, accordingly, he retired from the service. Before final orders could be passed on the writ petition, by the order dated 25.11.2004, the writ petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator with effect from 1.5.1997, but the Government took the stand that since he had not worked on the post, he was only entitled to notional promotional benefits and, thereafter, pension was refixed. Petitioner wants payment of full salary and other allowances of the period from 1.5.1997 till his retirement, i.e. 31.1.2001, and pensionary t benefits on refixation of pension, which he has been illegally denied.

(3.) IT is not disputed that from the year 1968 onwards, he worked with the Department and during the period from 1.5.1997 till his retirement, he also discharged the duties assigned to him. Had he been not illegally denied promotion from due date, and in normal course he could have been promoted as Block Extension Educator, and could have been entitled to the wages attached to that post, but in the case of the petitioner it is not his fault which prevented him from discharging the duties of Block Extension Educator. The promotion was granted much after retirement of the writ petitioner. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the financial benefits of such promotion on the principle of "No work no pay" as he never refused to work. It is also not the fact that the petitioner did not raise any objection and draw the attention of the authority concerned for non -consideration of his case for promotion. It is quite clear that when his case was not considered in spite of filing various representations by him, he was illegally denied promotion. He approached this Court, and even after the observations made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.9.2000 that the pendency of the writ petition will not prevent the respondents from considering the claim of the petitioner, promotion was not given to him. It is only three years after his retirement that the Government woke up from supine slumber and decided to grant promotion to him. It is, thus, overwhelmingly clear that the writ petitioner had been illegally denied promotion during his service tenure for no fault on his part.