ALOK SINGH, J. - (1.)
(2.) PETITIONER was promoted on the post of Head Master vide order dated 14.10.1999 with retrospective effect from 30th March 1983 with the stipulation that for all purposes date of promotion would be deemed 30.3.1083, however, petitioner would be paid salary for the post of Head Master from the date of joining i.e. 14.10.1999. Feeling aggrieved from the part of the condition that petitioner would be paid salary of the Head Master w.e.f. 14.10.1999, petitioner has filed present writ petition by invoking the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Undisputedly, petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2110 of 1995 (R) before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court making grievances that juniors to the petitioner were granted promotions to the post of Head Master and petitioner had been wrongly discriminated and denied promotion because of some vindictive approach of the officers working in the department. Petition C.W.J.C. No. 2110 of 1995 (R) was allowed vide judgment dated 10.01.1996, annexure no. 7 to the writ petition with the direction that petitioner would be provided promotion from the date his juniors were granted promotion. This Court in the judgment dated 10.01.1996 had specifically observed that petitioner had been wrongly discriminated and was wrongly denied promotion on the date his juniors were given promotion on the post of Head Master, despite the fact that petitioner was discharging the duties of the In -charge Head Master. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 10.01.1996, petitioner was granted promotion.
(3.) THIS Court in the case of Suryadeo Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2010 (3) JCR 238 (Jhr.) in paragraph 8 & 9 has referred the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court and learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as under: 8. Both the aforesaid Rules were considered by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in : 1990 (2) PLJR 248. The Division Bench in that case held that where an employee deserved promotion but was not granted the same for no fault of the employee, but because of wrong decision on the part of the State the employee would be entitled to not only to be granted promotion with retrospective but also financial benefits as a consequence of such promotion as also the interest on delayed payment of the financial benefits. The Division Bench expressly overruled the applicability of the Rule 58 to such situations. 9. Following the aforesaid Division Bench decision a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shri Mahavir Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Reported in : 2000 (1) PLJR 768 held that not only Rule 58 but also Rule 74 would have no application in such situation.;