Retrospective promotion claim fails where ACP benefits already compensated for delayed substantive promotion.

The petitioner sought promotion to Draftsman Grade-II with effect from 11 May 1988.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed consideration of his representation; the Chief Engineer subsequently rejected it, reasoning that promotion could not be granted after retirement.

The petitioner retired on 31 March 2015.

The State submitted that the final gradation list was prepared on 4 January 2017, after his retirement, and that he had received first and second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits with effect from 9 August 1999 and 12 March 2005, respectively, in lieu of substantive promotion.

He challenged the rejection and sought notional promotion and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration for notional promotion to Draftsman Grade-II from 11 May 1988 despite having retired in 2015.

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s representation was liable to be set aside, given that he had received first and second ACP benefits.

The Court referred to the Bihar State Employee Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, under which eligible regular employees in Groups B, C and D who had not received financial upgradation could receive ACP benefits.

The Court treated the petitioner’s first and second ACP benefits as monetary compensation for the absence of substantive promotion.

No judicial precedent or separate legal test was cited.

The Court noted that the petitioner had retired in 2015, before the department prepared the final gradation list in 2017.

It also found that he had received first and second ACP benefits, which enhanced his pay and compensated him financially for the absence of substantive promotion.

On those facts, the Court found no merit in the challenge to the rejection of his representation.