Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 6.9.2011, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa (respondent No.2). Further prayer has been made for granting monetary benefits from retrospective date i.e. the date petitioner was considered and granted promotion.

3. Factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1975 by the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa and he joined the said post on 11.5.1975 in Primary School, Sonua. Thereafter, the petitioner has passed I.A. in the year 1978, B.A. in the year 1983 and M.A. in the year 1992. After enhancing his qualification, the petitioner filed several representation for grant of I.A. and B.A. Trained scale and also for promotion to the post of Headmaster but unfortunately, the same was not granted whereas juniors to the petitioner were granted I.A. and B.A. Trained scale and also promoted to the post of Headmaster. Finding no other way, petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1999(R) and this Court by way of order dated 23.7.2001, passed an order for grant of I.A. & B.A. Trained scale from the date juniors to the petitioner were granted to the said scales and for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster from the date juniors to him have been promoted. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after filing contempt petition, the respondents were pleased to grant I.A. and B.A. Trained scale and also scale of Headmaster w.e.f. 1.3.1983, 4.3.1987 and 1.5.1990 respectively, i.e. from the dates juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion and also the benefits of trained scales. Though the petitioner was granted I.A. & B.A. Trained scale and also promotion in view of the order of this Court but he was denied the monetary benefits of trained scale and that of the Headmaster from the date of joining the promotional post and not from the retrospective date from which the juniors to him were considered and granted promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities for consideration of his case for grant of monetary benefits from the date juniors were considered and also in view of the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1129 of 2009. The respondent-authorities vide order dated 6.9.2011 rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that as per Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Jharkhand Financial Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefits from the retrospective date Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court again.

4. Mr. M.M. Pan, learned counsel strenuously urges that once the petitioner has been considered and granted promotion from the retrospective date i.e. the date juniors to him have been considered and promoted, he is also entitled for monetary benefits of the said period. Mr. Pan, learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to buttress his arguments placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad VS. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1990(2) PLJR 248 and also in case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. VS. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1991 (1) PLJR 272 and argues that Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Jharkhand Financial Rules is not at all applicable in the instant case as the same has been quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble Patna High Court. Learned counsel further argues that in view of quashment of the said Rules, the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefits from the date juniors to him have been considered and granted promotion. The impugned order is not at all tenable in the eyes of law.

5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been f