Ey its letter dated 10th September, 1970, the High Court allowed it and asked the District Judge to reconsider his case On 7th November, 1970, the then District Judge of Purnea ordered that the petitioner be promoted with effect from the date from which he was entitled to such promotion subject only to the companydition that he will number be entitled to arrears of salary from the date of promotion.
He was called by tie District Judge on 1st August, 1967, in his chamber and heard f personally.
119 of 1958 as to why the record of the case was number put up expeditiously before the presiding officer and a date fixed fore companysideration of the Sarishtedars report.
On 8th August, 1967, the District Judge passed an order that the petitioners increment and promotion be stopped for two years from 1st August, 1967.
The petitioner again appealed to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court against the order of the District Judge passed on 7th November, 1970 reflusing the arrears of salary.
On 30th August, 1967, the District Judge, Purnea, drew up a list of persons promoted but did number include the name of the petitioner in it The petitioner appeared to the High Court.
On 15th June, 1967, the District Judge, Purnea, rejecting the companyrectness of the petitioners stand, required the petitioner to show caue why his increments and promotion should number be stopped.
The petitioner then made a representation to the District Judge for the alleged arrears of his salary which he had number received but this was rejected.
He gave the explanation that he was number the dealing Assistant fur laud acquisition cases.
The District Judge, Purnea, asked for an explanation from him with regard to a land acquisition case No.
On 20th May, 1967,.
The petitioner repeated the his explanation.
