JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing part of the Office order as contained in Memo No.2616 dated 29.08.2008 issued by the respondent No.4; whereby the concerned respondent while allowing promotion to the petitioner on the rank of Graduate Trained Teacher with retrospective effect from 01.01.1987, has denied him the salary and monetary benefits of the promoted post. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority to consider his case for promotion on the post of Headmaster at least notionally with effect from retrospective date along with other consequential benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 24.03.1973 as Assistant Teacher at Moondih Middle School, Dhanbad. The petitioner had earlier preferred a writ application being CWJC No.3400 of 1998(R) and pursuant to the order passed by this Court; upon considering the representation of the petitioner vide office order dated 29.08.2008; he was granted promotion in Grade-IV scale with retrospective effect from 1.1.1987 itself; but while giving retrospective promotion, the monetary benefit was denied to the petitioner from the due date and hence the petitioner again moved before this Court by filing the instant writ application.

4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the office order wherein it has been clearly stated that the promotion has been given from 01.01.1987, however in view of Rule 74 of Jharkhand Finance Rule petitioner will not be entitled for the arrear of salary for the past period. In this regard he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sri Mahavir Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2000) 1 PLJR 768 and submits that the Hon’ble Court after discussing several decisions has held that “the principle of no work no pay on retrospective promotion to selection grade in the same cadre cannot be made applicable, as the person continued to function against the cadre post, even on such promotion to selection grade scale. In such case, on such retrospective promotion, arrear is payable”. He further submits that the facts of the case of Mahavir Pandey (supra) is same and similar as in the referred case; Rule 74 of Bihar Finance Rule and Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code has been discussed in detail and in the impugned order, same ground has been taken by the Respondents for denying the monetary benefits. As such, the decision of the Government is against the settled law that the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefit for retrospective promotion.

On the question of promotion to the post of Headmaster, he fairly submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the concerned respondent for consideration of promotion since in the meantime the petitioner has acquired requisite qualification and eligibility to be promoted as Headmaster of the school. He further draws attention of this Court towards gradation list (Annexure-4); wherein petitioner has been shown at serial No.1, as such the respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the gradation list.

5. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the impugned order is very clear that as per Rule 74 of Jharkhand Finance Rule, the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefit. He further relied upon Rule 58 of Bihar Service Code and submits that no error has been committed by the respondent and the petitioner is not entitled for the monetary benefit. However, he fairly submits that if the petitioner will file representation for the promotion to the post for Headmaster; that will be considered in accordance with law.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents