IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9829 of 2010 1. Satyendra Sharma S/O Late Ramadhin Sharma R/O Vill.- Chandra Nagar (Rako), P.S.- Mofassil Khagaria, Distt.- Khagaria Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical Up-Bhag, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical Circle, Road Construction Department, Darbhanga 5. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Work-Shop Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Khagaria ---------------------------------- 4. 21.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application was filed on 29.6.2010. On 21.4.2011 time as granted to file counter affidavit. The respondents did not consider it prudent to utilize the ten months period in between to file a counter affidavit. The matter was then taken up on 3.11.2011. Consequent to the discussions that took place during the proceeding learned Additional Advocate General No. 5 submitted that he would like to consult the officials of the Finance Department also. The Court therefore adjourned the matter for 17.11.2011. Accommodation was granted to the respondents on that date and also on 18.11.2011 at their request. No counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner was appointed as a Skilled Helper in 1969 and promoted to the post of Fitter Grade II in 1981. He superannuated from that post on 31.1.2009. The controversy in the case relates to appropriate scale in which the second time bound promotion should be granted to him. The respondents have granted it in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-, the petitioner contends that the correct scale to be provided is Rs. 4000- 2 6000/-. He appears to have represented for the purpose during his service tenure also. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he held the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- on 5.12.1997 with effect from 3.11.1994. Consequent to the revised pay scale announced on 8.2.1999 with effect from 1.1.1996 the replacement scale for Rs. 1200-1800/- was RS. 4000-6000.The replacement scale for Rs. 975-1540/- was Rs. 3040-4590/. The respondents are therefore apparently granting him the second time bound promotion in a wrong scale. Once he was granted time bound promotion in the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- he has to be given replacement of the same with effect from 1.1.1996 and not the replacement scale of what may have been his scale before grant of second time bound promotion (975-1540). A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Executive Engineer (Mechanical) Mechanical Workshop Division, Road Construction Division. At paragraph 4 it acknowledges that the petitioner was granted the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- consequent to grant of second time bound promotion. The Court is unable to decipher from the counter affidavit, the reasons and the justification for providing a revised scale to the petitioner on the scale of Rs. 975-1540/- when it is the admitted case of the respondents that he had already been granted scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-. The reliance by the respondents on a communication dated 15.11.2006 that the grant of ACP itself was under consideration need not engage the attention of the Court presently. In conclusion it is held that the petitioner has been able to successfully establish that he was granted second time bound promotion in 1997 with effect from 1994 in the scale of Rs. 1200- 1800/-. It is not the case of the respondents in the counter affidavit that 3 this came to be cancelled at any stage. If the replacement scale of the same is Rs. 4000-6000/- which is not denied in the counter affidavit the grant of the replacement scale of Rs. 975-1540 (3040-4590) is clearly unsustainable in law. The petitioner is held entitled to second time bound promotion in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Let all consequential action by payment of monetary dues, if any, revision of his Pension Payment Order and payment of revised superannuation dues be all complied by the official respondents in all its procedural formalities so that actual benefits flows to the petitioner within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The order dated 30.4.2010 is set aside. Let an expeditious decision in accordance with law be taken with regard to his claim of ACP. The application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)