- (1.) HEARD Sri Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to S.C.(L&C), counsel for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 24.01.2008 vide Memo No. 457 (Annexure -15) whereby though the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Additional Collector in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000 - 16,500/ - with effect from due date i.e. from 24.12.2005, but has been denied the consequential monetary benefits which he should have got from the date of his promotion. Sri Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that earlier by a notification dated 23.12.2006, granting promotion to the petitioner, the petitioner's promotion was made effective from a much later date, although his juniors were granted the benefit of promotion from 24.12.2005. The petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 4066 of 2007 and while disposing of the writ application, this Court had directed the Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the petitioner's representation in the context of his claim for grant of promotion from appropriate date and to give his decision on the same by passing a reasoned and appropriate order. Consequent upon the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner filed his representation which was duly considered by the respondent Secretary of the concerned department and the petitioner's claim for his promotion from due date was granted. However, instead of granting the consequential monetary benefits from the date of promotion, the impugned notification contains a further order that the monetary benefits shall not be applicable to the petitioner from the date of his promotion.
(3.) REFERRING and relying upon in this context the judgement of this Court in the case of Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram V/s. State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No. 2996 of 2007 reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 46, learned counsel submits that an identical issue was raised in the aforementioned case wherein the Court, after considering the entire aspects and the explanations offered by the respondent State, had observed that since the respondents had found the petitioner entitled for promotion with effect from 01.11.2004, depriving the petitioner of consequential financial benefit of promotion is wholly arbitrary and unjust. Learned counsel adds that the same ratio would also apply to the facts of the petitioner's case.;