Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner who was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1970 in the establishment of Judgeship of Muzaffarpur got transferred to Hajipur and served there till 1996. He was thereafter, transferred on administrative ground by General Order No. 74/96 to the Judgeship of Lohardagga (Ranchi). There ­after the petitioner preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7823 of 1999 before the Patna High Court challenging his transfer. However, the said writ petition was dismissed for default after being transferred to this Court upon bifurcation of the parent State of Bihar. The other writ petitions challenging the similar orders of transfer preferred by the other petitioners were also dismissed by the Patna High Court. The petitioner after join ­ing the Judgeship of Lohardagga retired on 31 -6 -2002 in the scale of Rs. 4000 -6000/ -. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner got the benefit of ACP at the transferred place i.e. at Lohardagga and has also got his retrial benefits and pension fixed accordingly un ­der the scale of pay so drawn.
(2.) THE petitioner's grievance in the present writ petition was that the respondents have not given him promotion in his service career while those who were at Vaishali, his erstwhile place of posting, were considered and granted promotion vide Office Order No. 42 of 98. The petitioner however, has raised a claim for promotion by filing the instant writ petition in the year 2011 and given explanation that he had been representing before the respondents vide Annexure -2 in 2006 and also obtained information through R.T.I. vide Annexure -4 in the year, 2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has been representing all along but his grievances were never redressed.
(3.) THE respondent State of Bihar has appeared and filed counter -affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner was transferred in the year 1996 and promotional exercise were conducted on those employees who were on rolls in the Judgeship of Vaishali in the year 1998, some of whom got promotion by virtue of Order No. 42/98. The petitioner's last pay slip and service records were already sent to Judgeship of Lohardagga and, therefore, the case of the petitioner could not have been considered at Vaishali at the relevant point of time. It has also been stated on their part, that there were certain adverse remarks against him which were communicated by the District Judge, Vaishali vide Confidential Letter No. 43/96 to the Patna High Court which led to his transfer vide Hon'ble Court's letter dated 3rd June, 1996.;