A Government employee being granted promotion with a retrospective date cannot be denied material benefits accruing from the promotion on the plea that he did not work on that post from the retrospective date.

The same petitioner has filed these two writ petitions, seeking different reliefs in this same set of facts and circumstances. These two petitions were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common ORDER :.

2. The relevant facts, in brief, can be stated thus. In 1978-79 while the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in Saran Canal Division, Gandak Project, he gave work ORDER :s for an aggregate sum of about Rs. 10 lacs. The work ORDER :s were given on nomination basis and without inviting tenders. According to the petitioner the total amount was spread over 90 work ORDER :each of which was for a sum under Rs. 25,000/-, that it was within his competence to give work ORDER :for a sum not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- without inviting tenders and further that the works in question were of emergency nature and the facts and circumstances in each case justified the issuance of the work ORDER :by-passing the lengthy procedure of inviting tenders etc. He was, however, put under suspension by ORDER :, dated 14.8.1982 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding on the charges of insubordination and abuse of his official position and further that his action in making allotment of 90 pieces of work on the basis of nomination was intended to cause financial loss to the Government and financial gain to himself and the contractors.

3. As little or no progress was made in the disciplinary proceeding while the petitioner remained under suspension, he came to this court in CWJC No. 2769/1985. That writ petition was disposed of by a bench of this court by ORDER :dated 6.8.95 the following direction in that ORDER :is relevant for the present :

"...... It is agreed that a copy of the departmental proceeding along with the copy of charges will be served on Mr. Kanth representing the petitioner in couse of the day to expedite the matter. Cause, if any, must be shown within three weeks. On the assumption of the compliance of the formalities, we direct that the departmental proceeding be concluded as expeditiously as possible, but not beyond three months from the date of the filing of the show cause. The petitioner is directed to extend full cooperation in the proceeding and any time lost on account of any delay tactics by him would be added to the period of three months. It is further directed that if the proceeding is not concluded as stipulated above, the impugned ORDER :of suspension will stand revoked." (emphasais added)

4. As directed, charge sheet was given to the petitioner on the date, the aforesaid ORDER :was passed. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 16.9.1985. A departmental enquiry was held to investigate into the charges and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 29.10.1985, i.e. well within the period of three months fixed by the High Court for the conclusion of the proceeding. Admittedly, however, no final ORDER :was passed in the disciplinary proceeding till 15.12.1985 on which date the three months' period from the date of submission of the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet came to an end. Therefore, by virtue of the High Court's ORDER :as quoted above, the petitioner would be deemed to have been released from suspension w.e.f. 16.12.1985 though no ORDER :, revoking suspension was passed by the departmental authorities.

5. An ORDER :was finally passed in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner on 8.6.1988. By this ORDER :the disciplinary authority denied to release the petitioner from suspension from the date of the ORDER :and besides giving him the punishments of censure, to be recorded in the character roll for the year 1978-79, and withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect, gave the direction that for the period of suspension the petitioner would not be entitled to anything beyond the subsistence allowance. Here, without going into the punishments awarded to the petitioner, it has to be pointed out that the direction to release the petitioner from suspe