- (1.) FROM the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it appears that on considering the petitioner's grievance regarding the placement of his position in the seniority list, necessary correction has been made in as much as the petitioner's promotion has been given from the date of his promotion i.e. 7.5.1992 and the same has been confirmed with effect from 22.5.1995.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -State, however concedes that the statement made in para-10 of the counter affidavit as also in annexure -A but the corresponding notification of the seniority list as per Annexure -B, does not reflect the promotion in the light of seniority given to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the error can be rectified by issuance of a corrigendum. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been placed above to Sri Binod Kumar whose name figures at serial 18 of the seniority list (Annexure -B) since the date of petitioner's appointment is confirmed as 7.5.1992 whereas that of Sri Biond Kumar as 5.8.1992.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submits further that petitioner has been denied sanction of monetary benefit to which he is entitled from the date of promotion and the respondents ought to have been taken decision for payment of the consequential monetary benefits instead of declaring the same as notional benefits. Learned counsel argues that this issue has by now been well settled by this court that the monetary benefits can not be denied from the date of promotion as sanctioned. Learned counsel, in this context refers to a judgment passed in the case of Sudhansu Bhusan Ram V/s. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2008(2), J.L.J.R. page 46.;