Heard respective counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The writ petition is being decided finally.

2. The petitioners have made a number of prayers in the instant writ petition, but counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has confined his argument to prayer no. (iii), which reads thus:-

"for issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) including the writ of mandamus from this Hon'ble Court directing the respondents not to alter/vary the service conditions of the petitioners which existed immediately before the appointed day to their disadvantage, as the same is violative of the provisions of Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000."

3. Petitioner No. 1 as well as petitioner no. 2 both were working on the post of Functional Manager under the Department of Industries of the erstwhile State of Bihar. Petitioner No. 1 has joined the post on 1.6.1990 and petitioner no. 2 has joined the post of Functional Manager on 1st August, 1990. The claim of the petitioners alongwith few others for promotion to then post of General Managers/ Deputy Directors of Industries accrued while bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand and Bihar had not taken place. Since promotion of the present two petitioners alongwith few others was not being considered by the then State of Bihar, a writ petition was preferred vide C.W.J.C. No. 115 of 2004. The writ petition was decided finally all 30th April, 2004 with an observation that approval from the Cabinet Secretariat was awaited right from 1999 and the matter was being delayed on one pretext or the other. Finally the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the State Government to take a final decision pertaining to promotion of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The petitioners continued to work in the combined cadre till May 2005 and it was only subsequent to the aforesaid date, cadre of the present petitioners was fixed as State of Jharkhand.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that other claimants alongwith the petitioners in the State of Bihar have been granted promotion but the claim of the petitioners is still not complied with.

5. According to the contesting respondents' counsel the claim is pending consideration. State Counsel submits that a gradation list has been prepared and objections have been invited and the Government is going to take a decision shortly.

6. This contention of the State has been disputed by the petitioners. The gradation list is prepared and is under challenged by a number of other petitioners.

7. The argument in the circumstances advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that proviso to Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 states "that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand under Section 72 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government.

8. In the circumstance, the emphatic argument is that since the petitioners were working with combined State of Bihar and Jharkhand previously and on the appointed day they continued in the State of Bihar, but their cadre was fixed only in the year 2005 when they had already perfected their right for promotion, they should not be subjected to any disadvantage as provided by Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000.

9. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a number of decisions to lay emphasis on his submission that since valuable right had accrued to them while their cadre was not fixed and, therefore, such right cannot be taken away only because they have been allocated Jharkhand Cadre. In the case of Shyam Bahadur Sinha vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2008)1 JLJR 154. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is being reproduced herein belo