Notional promotion entitles the employee to financial benefits, and the applicability of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code in such situations was overruled by the court.

By the Court.-Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for a direction to the respondent authority concern to pay the petitioner all the consequential benefits from the date of his promotion.

3. The short facts are as under:

1. That the petitioner is initially appointed as Class IV Employee in the office of Executive Engineer. Irrigation Division, Dumka after following the procedure provided for appointment and accordingly, he joined the said post in the year 1974. The petitioner has passed his matriculation examination in the year 1969 and by the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Deoghar dated 27.4.81 a gradation list of regular class IV employees was prepared and published on 21.8.81 vide memo No.1712 under the signature of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Deoghar in which petitioner finds place at Sl.No. 196.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Govt. Circular No. 6856 dated 6.10.83 issued by the Secretary Irrigation department it is very clear that 20% of vacancy falling in grade III posts was to be filled up from grade IV employees on the basis of seniority. It was further mentioned in the said circular that persons appointed in Class-IV prior to 18.10.1978 would be given promotion to Class-III posts according to their seniority. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a class IV employee in the year 1974. However, in a promotion list published vide Memo No.21 dated 7.1.83 surprisingly the persons who were juniors to the petitioner and whose name appeared below the name of the petitioner in the gradation list were given promotion to Class III post. According to the petitioner, the employees at Sl.Nos. 200, 201 and 216 in the gradation list were promoted whereas, the case of the petitioner, who is above in the gradation list, was not considered and he was not given promotion. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 4170 of 98. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 6.12.99 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Class-III within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, since the order passed by High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 4170/98 was not complied with by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a contempt proceeding vide MJC No. 3269 of 2000 and during the pendency of the said proceeding, the State of Jharkhand implemented the order and petitioner was granted promotion notionally w.e.f. 12.7.1990 but the payment with regard to difference of salary of the intervening period has not been granted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, referred to and relied upon the documents annexed to this petition i.e. gradation list, order passed in CWJC No. 4170/98, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 (3) JCR 238, 1990 (2) PLJR 248 and 2000 (1) PWR 768. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the judgment reported in 2010(3) JCR 238, this Court has considered all the previous judgments rendered on this point and after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case involved in the matter, passed an order directing the respondent authorities to grant the retrospective promotion and to compute all financial benefits and post-retirement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the provision contained in Rule 58 (A) and (B) of the Bihar Service Code read with Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules have been considered by the Court and it was held that there is no applicability