IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18576 of 2009 1. MANO RANJAN PRASAD S/O LATE CHANDRA SHEKHAR NARAIN SINHA R/O MOH- NEW YARPUR, JANTA ROAD AND P.S. GARDANIBAGH, TOWN AND DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA ----------- 2. 09.04.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.21009 rejecting his claim to be considered for grant of time bound promotion. The petitioner was appointed on a Class III post in the erstwhile Bihar State Dairy Development Corporation. He was regularised on 25.10.1978 with effect from 25.7.1974 as is apparent from Order no. 897 dated 23.10.1978 vide Annexure 2 to the writ application. The poor condition of the Corporation led to a policy decision of the State Government for winding up of the Corporation and absorption of its employees in the services of the State Government. By order dated 7.3.1986 the petitioner was absorbed in the services of the State Government with pay protection. It is the further case of the petitioner that by order dated 15.2.1988/6.10.1988 a policy decision had been taken by the State Government that the benefits of time bound promotion shall be available to employees of the Corporation. When the same was not forthcoming certain others filed CWJC no. 4616 of 1995 disposed on 19.10.1995. This Court held that those who had completed ten years of service in the Corporation in terms of the State Government 2 circular dated 15.2.1988/6.10.1988 were entitled to be considered for time bound promotion on their absorption along with pay protection. Directions were therefore given holding:- “In this view of the matter the respondents are duty bound to count the services rendered by the petitioners in the respondent Corporation for the purpose of providing them the benefit of time bound promotion.” The impugned order states that the petitioner was appointed in the Corporation on 1.4.1977 by order dated 31.3.1977. Therefore at the time of his absorption on 19.3.1986 he had not completed ten years of service in the Corporation. Prima facie the reason appears to be contrary to the records as discussed above. The impugned order does not deal with or discuss the order dated 23.10.1978 at all muchless notice his initial appointment in 1973 followed by regularisation in 1974. In so far as the second ground in the impugned order that the petitioner had not passed the departmental examination and was not eligible to be considered for time bound promotion, reliance has been placed on a government order dated 27.9.2003 issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries to the Accountant General which states that those who have been appointed prior to 28.1.1999 are exempted from the requirement to appear at the departmental Hindi examination. In conclusion, this Court is satisfied that the first ground urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had not completed ten years of serviced in the Corporation does not appear tenable prima facie from the documents of the respondents themselves. In so far as the second ground urged of 3 there being no requirement to pass departmental examination and allegedly on which ground the benefit has been granted to certain others similarly situated absorbed in the government service from the Corporation who had likewise not cleared the departmental Hindi examination, let the petitioner represent before the authorities who are then required to pass a reasoned and speaking order considering the claim of the petitioner for time bound promotion on that ground. Since the writ petition is being disposed without a counter affidavit, liberty is granted to the respondents if circumstances so warrant to discuss the issue of his non completion of ten years of service in the Corporation also but then they are strictly bound by the recitals in the order dated 23.10.1978 which shall necessarily have to be part of the consideration. Let consideration in the aforesaid manner be done and the consequential benefits, if any, be paid within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the petitioner, if he so desires to also raise the issue to be considered for grant of ACP if so advised. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)