1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The question, which falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the benefit of notional promotion can be granted only after joining of the post or from the date the promotions are notified and also as to whether the petitioner is entitled for consequential monetary benefits on account of notional promotion granted to him.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner vide order, as contained in Annexure 1 dated 30.8.1993, was promoted to the post of Registrar in the Secretariat and the order of promotion as directed vide order, as contained in Annexure 1, was given retrospective effect vide notification as contained in Annexure 2 dated 27.6.1996 with effect from 5.10.1989 and thereafter the petitioner was again promoted to the post of Under Secretary under the respondents vide notification, as contained in Annexure 3, dated 17.8.1998 with retrospective effect from 17.8.1998, whereas the petitioner superannuated with effect from February 1997. It is further submitted that the consequential benefits of promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Registrar vide orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2, have not been given to him only on the ground that the benefit will be payable from the date of his joining and not from the retrospective date, as notified vide Annexure 2 with effect from 5.10.1989. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the consequential monetary benefit, which was made available to the petitioner vide Annexure 3, is also not being given to him as he superannuated with effect from February 1997, though the notification, as contained in Annexure 3, was given effect to retrospectively, with effect from 5.10.1993. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to get consequential monetary benefits of the promotions from the date the same were notified and not from the date the Government employee joined the post.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent stating therein, inter alia, that in view of the circular of the Finance Department dated 4th April, 1985, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit, the promotional benefits are admissible from the date the Government servant assumes charge of the promoted post as Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code and Rule 17 of the Assistants Joint Cadre Rules, 1992.

5. The scope of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code has been interpreted by a Bench of this Court in Dr. Paras Nath Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and others 1990 (2) Patna Law Journal Reports 248. In paragraph 19 of the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad (supra), this Court held as follows: The other contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code prohibits any grant of pay and allowances to the petitioner on a fictional and notional promotion granted to him is, in my view, misconceived. A notional promotion has to be as if, for service benefits, he had been given due promotion. A person, who is entitled to promotion and is not promoted, can always invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus to the employer State to consider his case for such promotion. Such due promotion is not a claim of anything notional but it is something that is really attached to the status and the service contract of the employee concerned. In the case of Alappat Narana Menon V/s State of Kerala (1977 Volume II S.L.R. 656) the Supreme Court has stated :

"The foregoing discussion with reference to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the Gujarat, Allahabad and Mysore High Courts clearly establish that a Government servant cannot be said to have forfeited his claims for arrears of salary when he did not get his due promotion for no fault of his. The Governments plea the petitioner was given only a notional promotion is not sustainable in law. What the pet