IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11103 of 2003 1. Kamlawati Devi W/o- late- Raj Kumar Upadhyay, Resident of Mohalla- Gola Bazar, Thana Road, Askamni Man ki Gali, P.S.- Buxar Town Police Station, District-Buxar 2. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay S/o- Raj Kumar Upadhyay, Resident of Mohalla- Gola Bazar, Thana Road, Askamni Man ki Gali, P.S.- Buxar Town Police Station, District-Buxar 3. Abhay Kumar Upadhyay S/o- Raj Kumar Upadhyay, Resident of Mohalla- Gola Bazar, Thana Road, Askamni Man ki Gali, P.S.- Buxar Town Police Station, District-Buxar 4. Rita kumari D/o- Raj Kumar Upadhyay, Resident of Mohalla- Gola Bazar, Thana Road, Askamni Man ki Gali, P.S.- Buxar Town Police Station, District-Buxar ………….Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur 4. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle-2, Jhajha District- Jhajha 6. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, No. 2, Jhajha, District- Jhajha 7. The Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna …………Respondents ------------ 08 16.10.2008 The petitioner joined as a senior electrician in work charge establishment of Water Resources Department. It is not in dispute that why in work charge establishment he was first senior mechanic then he was made senior electrician then he was made foreman. Pay scales for each of these three posts are different and in the ascending order. These are posts of higher responsibility with bigger 2 pay scale. Pursuant to government decision in 1987 petitioner became entitle to time bound promotion with effect from 1981. It was accordingly granted with monetary benefits with effect from 1987, when the decision was taken. Petitioner does not quarrel with that aspect of the matter. Petitioner on retirement had received the said two time bound promotions. During pendency of the writ petition his time bound promotion has been cancelled, which he has challenged by interlocutory application. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, set aside the order by which the two time bound promotions were granted to him has cancelled and secondly to direct the respondents to pay retiral dues taking into account the time bound promotion with monetary benefit with effect from 1987. Naturally, the second question is wholly dependent on the result of the first. State has filed a counter affidavit stating that while in work charge establishment petitioner had got three promotions. Under time bound promotion scheme a person would get time bound promotion only if he is otherwise qualified and has not got promotion. In other words, time bound promotion is not in addition to regular promotion rather if regular promotion has been given time bound promotion is to be denied. It is thus submitted by State that the time bound promotion shall be wrongly granted to the petitioner and that too after his retirement, as such, it was rightly cancelled. Petitioner states that many other similarly situated persons are enjoying the benefits of time bound promotion but he has been denied the same, rather his time 3 bound promotion has been cancelled. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Pursuant to the State Government setting up the 4th Pay Revision Commission its report considered one important aspect of the matter. Employees though otherwise qualified for promotion could not get promotion because there was not enough vacancy in the promotional avenue, this laid to stagnation. The Commission was of the opinion that stagnation is a disincentive to efficiency of work and as such it provided for at least two promotions in the career of a person. If because of lack of promotional avenue a person did not get promotion then he was entitled to time bound promotion. The scheme itself clarified that if a person had received promotion in the normal event he would not be entitled to time bound promotion. Thus, in my view, time bound promotion is not an additional promotional avenue in addition to normal promotion, rather, it is a substitute where normal promotion could not be granted and is as such a notional promotion with monetary benefits not altering inter se seniority. If this scheme is kept in mind then it would be seen that so far as petitioner is concerned even though he was in work charge establishment he received three promotions from senior mechanic to senior electrician from senior electrician to foreman. The petitioner cannot say that so long as he continued in work charge establishment his services not being regularized. Those promotions were wrongly granted or have to be ignored. Promotion is a matter of fact. It was granted. Petitioner took benefit thereunder of increased pay scale. 4 Now, he cannot turn around and challenge that those promotions were wrongly granted only to justify the two time bound promotions he was given after his retirement. If these three promotions are taken into account then obviously petitioner was wrongly granted the two time bound promotions. On detection of a wrong being committed the time bound promotion granted with monetary benefit with effect from 1987 has rightly been cancelled. No exception can be taken to the action of the State in this regard. However, as not payment is being sought to be recovered from the petitioner in respect of the time bound promotion having been granted and then cancelled. No order protecting the petitioner in that regard need be passed. Thus, in my view, petitioner would be deemed to have retired on the basis of the last position has held by him on the day of his superannuation and all his pensionary benefits would accordingly be calculated and paid. This already having been done. Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition thus stands dismissed. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)