- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, submits at the outset that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner had retired from service and consequently, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 are no more necessary parties and therefore, the petitioner would prefer to delete the names of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 from the cause title of the writ application. In the light of the submissions, the names of respondents 3 to 5 are deleted from the cause title of the writ application. Heard Shri Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manoj Tondon, learned counsel for the respondent State.
(2.) PETITIONER 's prayer in this writ application, is for issuing a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Commissioner from the date from which the private respondents, who were junior to him in the gradation list, were promoted. Shri Kalyan Roy, submits that since the petitioner has now retired, his grievance is confined only to the demand for monetary benefits, to which he would have been entitled upon the grant of promotion from the due date. Learned counsel concedes that by the recent notification dated 30.6.2007, the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jamtara which post is equivalent to the rank of Sub Divisional Officer. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner's grievance however, is on the non -payment of the monetary benefit of promotion which ought to have been given to him from the date when it fell due. Learned counsel explains that earlier, a Departmental Proceeding which was initiated against him. When the proceedings were delayed, the petitioner filed a writ application before this court which was disposed of on 17.7.2003 with a specific direction to the respondents to conclude the Departmental Proceeding within six months from the date of the order. Despite such direction, the Departmental Proceeding was not concluded within the period stipulated in the order. Learned counsel adds that had the Department Proceeding been concluded within the period stipulated, the petitioner would have availed the benefit of exoneration from the charges and the consequential benefit of coming within the zone of consideration for his promotion. Learned counsel explains further that even in the counter -affidavit, it has been accepted by the respondents that though, the petitioner's case was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration and the same was considered, but since the confidential report of the petitioner was not forthcoming, no decision on the petitioner's promotion could be taken at the relevant time. Learned counsel submits that on account of such lapses, for which the petitioner cannot be put to fault, he had been made to suffer deprivation of his promotion from due date during the tenure of service and also the monetary loss since that date. Learned counsel explains that the petitioner's grievance is that the ACP benefit ought to have been given to the petitioner from 1999 i.e. the date on which he became eligible for the same, but the petitioner was allowed to retire on a lower pay scale of Rs. 6500/
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, while inviting attention to the specific paragraphs of the counter -affidavit, would submit that the petitioner need not to have any grievance in view of the fact that having considered his case, the respondents have already granted him the benefit of ACP and sanction for payment of the monetary benefits, has already been issued by the competent authorities.;