Delay in promotion and denial of financial benefits, despite no fault of the petitioner, led to the court's ruling in favor of the petitioner.

1. Petitioner who was an employee of Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class l, has moved this Court for payment of remaining salary in the rank of Additional Director from 11.1.88 and the Director from 1.8.89, subsequent to the order of the State Government promoting him from such date in view of direction of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1894 of 1991 and 1895 of 1991, which had upheld the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6230 of 1989.

2. This case has a long chequered history. Petitioner has been agitating his claim in this Court by filing a writ and contempt application right from July, 1989. Finally inspite of direction of the Supreme Court, petitioners case was not considered rather in the year 1998 another meeting of D.P.C. was held. Cases of other persons were considered but not petitioners case. Petitioner again moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9680 of 1999 which was disposed of on 10 November, 2000 and the proceeding of the D.P.C. itself was quashed. As the only stand which was taken by the Respondent-State was that as the petitioner has already superannuated in 1996 his case was not required to be considered. Only after when the entire proceeding of the D.P.C. was cancelled then a fresh proceeding of D.P.C. was held, name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion on the post of Additional Director and Director from the date as given above. However, it was made clear that as the petitioner has already superannuated and not worked on the aforesaid post, no financial benefit was required to be given to him. This had led to the present writ application.

3. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not at all responsible rather it was the conduct of the Respondent-State which has not allowed to function on the higher post. He has been agitating his grievances since 1989 itself but for one reason or the other Respondent thought it proper not to promote him on the higher post. It was only in view of intervention of this Court and the Supreme Court that after his superannuation the said order has been passed. As he was found fit and has been promoted from the due date and as he has been withheld from functioning of the higher post by the Respondent and there was no laches on his part, as such, financial benefit cannot be withheld.

4. In support of the said contention, petitioner has relied on annexure-12 series which are orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3391 of 1994 and other such cases. Against the order of the writ Court in the aforesaid case, L.P.A. has been preferred by the State of Bihar and others being L.P.A. No. 553 of 1995. L.P.A. Bench upheld the order of the writ court and only the part of the interest had been modified from 15% to 12% and the cost from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 500/-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh V/s. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, reported in (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 181 and Food Corporation of India V/s. S.N. Nagarkar, reported in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 475.

6. Mr. S.J. Rahman, learned G.P. 7, on the other hand, though could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the petitioner that there was no laches on the part of the petitioner rather the petitioner was agitating his grievances since 1989 itself and the final order had been passed after his superannuation but relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. O.P. Gupta & Ors., reported in (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 533 it has been contended that the petitioners are not entitled for arrears of pay from the deemed date to the date of their superannuation as the maxim of no pay for no work has to be upheld. This Court has gone into the aforesaid judgment. The said judgment goes to show that the Supreme Court had directed for preparation of a fresh seniority list as per the rules ignoring the Government circular which was contrary thereto. In compl