IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.10213 OF 2007 SURESH PRASAD,S/O LATE BALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAE JAFARA, POLICE STATION SILAO DISTRICT NALANDA. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIATE, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 4.THE HEADMASTER, BAPU MEMORIAL MIDDLE SCHOOL, L.I.C COLONY, KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA 5.THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 6.THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 20.10.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions directing the respondents to shift the date of first time bound promotion granted to the petitioner from 1.10.85 to 15.3.82 and further to grant selection grade pay scale from 15.3.94 and to revise the pay scale accordingly and further to pay difference of pay on account of shifting the date of first time bound promotion calculating it till the date of retirement and further to revise the pension, gratuity and leave encashment and to pay difference of amount and further to allow the petitioner to receive pension accordingly and further to pay 10% interest upon the total payable amount in term of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 2 04.12.1998 in C.W.J.C NO. 2209 of 1998. Calculating it till date after deducting Rs. 7192/- which has been paid in the name of interest, although according to the respondents, payable interest amount was Rs. 48,732/-.” Mr. Vishnu Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforementioned prayer would submit that when there was a specific direction by this Court to pay the petitioner not only the retirement benefits but also after giving him the benefit of first time bound promotion w.e.f. 15.03.1982 and the second time bound promotion w.e.f 15.03.1997 with 10 per cent interest, the Authorities having made the payment of the part of the retirement benefit without payment of upto date interest and also without giving him the benefit of promotion in the first time bound promotion w.e.f 15.03.1982 and denying the second time bound promotion altogether, this Court should now redirect the Authorities to comply the order of this Court dated 04.12.1998 in C.W.J.C No. 2209 of 1998 in the letter and spirit. He has also invited attention of this Court towards a communication of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna dated 3 22.06.2003, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was entitled for interest as awarded by this Court @ 10 per cent per annum to the tune of Rs. 48,732/- and was actually paid a sum of Rs. 8192/- only and thereby the petitioner was entitled to receive balance amount of Rs. 40,540/-. Mr. Dubey, in fact was also emphatic that in view of the Government circular dated 07.11.1974, the petitioner would be entitled for grant of his first time bound promotion w.e.f 15.03.1982, inasmuch as, the date of appointment of the petitioner in the School in question is 15.03.1972. Basing his submission therefore, on the aforementioned premise, he would proceed that the petitioner would be entitled for payment of arrears of salary and consequential enhancement in the retirement benefit as also the amount of interest as awarded by this Court. In this case there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents and therefore, this Court has to proceed on the basis of the averments made in the writ application itself. It is not in dispute that the 4 petitioner was working in a private School and was appointed by the Managing Committee of such School on 15.03.1972. It is also not in dispute that the School was taken over by the State Government w.e.f 01.10.1975, and the petitioner also started receiving payment of his salary from the Government in the matric trained scale of pay only on 01.10.1975. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Government circular dated 07.11.1974, which talks of inter se seniority of the teachers of the taken over schools in no way would improve the claim of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion, inasmuch as, the Government circular dated 30.12.1981 specifically lays down that the Government Servant would be entitled for grant of first time bound promotion on completion of 10 years of service in particular pay scale by way of anti- stagnation removal measure if he has not been given any promotion and/or higher pay scale. In the present case admittedly the petitioner started receiving payment of salary from funds of the Government after 5 take over of the School w.e.f 01.10.1975 and therefore, the period of 10 years for the purpose of time bound promotion would be completed by the petitioner only w.e.f 01.10.1985. As a matter of fact, this Court also in the earlier round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner in C.W.J.C No. 2209 of 1998 did not hold the petitioner entitled for first time bound promotion w.e.f 15.03.1982 and had only observed that the case of the petitioner for payment of retirement benefit may be expedited and the same should be made on the basis of grant of time bound promotion both first and second w.e.f 15.03.1982 and 15.03.1997 only if the petitioner was eligible for the same. The eligibility therefore, was yet to be decided by the Authorities and if they have ultimately found that the petitioner’s grant of the date of matric trained scale of pay was w.e.f 01.10.1975, the determination made by them for time bound promotion w.e.f 01.10.1985 cannot be faulted in law. Once this aspect becomes clear there would be no difficulty in rejecting the rest of the prayer as with regard to grant of 6 second time bound promotion, inasmuch as, the petitioner on completion of twenty five years of service to be reckoned from the date of take over of the school of the petitioner and his becoming a governmental servant w.e.f. 1.10.1975 he could become eligible for grant of second time bound promotion w.e.f. 01.10.2000, the date on which 25 years of service has been completed by the petitioner as Government servant but then the petitioner retired in the year 1998 and the time bound promotion scheme was itself abolished by the Government w.e.f. 01.01.1996. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any justification in the claim of the petitioner for grant of second time bound promotion. This court accordingly also must hold that the petitioner was rightly granted his first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.10.1985 as also was given retirement benefits. The rest of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as with regard to any further claim for payment of arrears of salary and retirement benefits of the petitioners also need not detain this Court inasmuch as all these issues infact stand settled and closed 7 in view of an earlier order of this Court in the contempt application filed by the petitioner alleging non compliance of the order dated 04.12.1998 passed in C.W.J.C No. 2209 of 1998. As a matter of fact this Court by an order dated 30.03.2000 in M.J.C. No. 1607 of 1999 had held that the order dated 4.12.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2209/1998 in question had been substantially complied by the Authorities. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the last sentence of the order dated 30.3.2000 reading as follows “If the petitioner has any further grievance he may bring the same to the notice of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna”, would not entitle the petitioner to now once again raise the same issue inasmuch as they have been already adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner, however, has still a valid point as with regard to payment of interest, inasmuch as, it was by way of compliance of the order of this Court that the Authorities had concluded admissibility of interest payable to the petitioner to the 8 tune of Rs. 48,732/- and as per the findings which have not been controverted by respondents, he has been paid a sum of Rs. 7192/- as against the 10 per cent of interest awarded by this Court in the earlier order. As a matter of fact, when the District Superintendent of Education, the Controlling, Drawing and Disbursing Authority had himself advised the Accountant General to pay the balance amount of interest of Rs. 40,540/- the Accountant General should have issued orders to the Authorities in terms of the letter of the District Superintendent of Education dated 22.06.2003 or at least should have given reply thereof. The Accountant General could not have kept the matter pending for such a long period. Unfortunately the counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General has also no explanation on this aspect inasmuch as he has also not filed any counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, the direction to the respondent to ensure that the remaining amount of interest of Rs. 40,540/- as per Annexure-6, the letter of the District Superintendent of Education dated 9 22.01.2003, if not already paid by now, must be paid to the petitioner along with up to date interest of ten percent from 22.06.2003 to the date of its actual payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)