IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5265 of 2005 LAXMI PRASAD YADAV SON OF LATE GOVIND RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HRIDYA NAGAR, P.S. BASANTPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MECHANICAL, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MECANICAL CIRCLE, BIRPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MECHANIAL DIVISION NO. 2, BIRPUR. ----------- 3 23/08/2010 Petitioner is a retired employee who is now aggrieved by the decision communicated to him by the Chief Engineer, Mechanical which is dated 4.7.2005. Said order has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. That order is sought to be challenged by way of amendment by I.A. No. 3005 of 2007. I.A. is allowed. Petitioner was appointed as a Compilation Clerk in the work charge establishment of Koshi Project on 1.11.1961. After rendering service for a while, he came to be promoted/appointed on the post of time keeper which would be evident from Annexure 3/1. Date for such promotion/appointment is indicated as 7.1.1969. - 2 - When the scheme of time bound promotion was brought in play on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, petitioner was granted first time bound and second time bound promotions on a date indicated in the order of notification. It did not satisfy the petitioner because he wanted the benefit of time bound promotion from his initial appointment in the work charge establishment which was from 1.11.1961. When the writ application was filed, matter was re-considered by the respondents and Annexure-A which is under challenge now has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that promotion in the work charge establishment is no promotion in the eye of law and, therefore, even if the petitioner was granted promotion or appointed on the post of time keeper, that cannot come in the way of the petitioner claiming benefit of time bound promotion from 1.11.1961. In this regard he relies on a decision rendered in the case of Ram Lakhan Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2006(3) PLJR, 21. The question raised by the petitioner has to be considered in the light of the scheme for time bound - 3 - promotion as well as the decision taken by the respondents contained in Annexure-A. Benefit of time bound promotion was introduced as a concept for the first time on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee and it was to be made available to all such employees who did not have any avenue of promotion to the next higher post for long period of time. As a matter of principle, it was decided that every employee during his service period would be given benefit of two promotions and where there are no avenue of promotion, the benefit of time bound promotion would accrue, one after completion of ten years of service and second after 25 years. The effect of time bound promotion was not to augment the post or responsibility of employee but only to bring some cheers in his life by some rise in the pay scale. If the case of the present petitioner is looked into in the above background then it is evident that the time bound promotion given to the petitioner must relate back to the post he was given promotion under the respondents. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his promotion or appointment as time keeper was on a higher - 4 - pay scale with higher responsibility. Time bound, therefore, would be calculated from the last post which he held and cannot relate back to the period the petitioner had worked in the work charge establishment because benefit of time bound was being extended to the petitioner from the post from which the benefit of promotion had not accrued. Since the petitioner did not remain on the initial post on which he was engaged, the respondents have done no wrong by taking the date when he was appointed as a time keeper i.e. 7.1.1969 for the benefit of first time bound promotion after ten years and second time bound after 25 years. Annexure-A has not taken away the benefit of time bound promotion given to the petitioner but has re- worked the date from which such benefit will accrue. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the proposition that promotion in the work charge establishment is no promotion in the eye of law seems to be misplaced kind of reliance placed by the petitioner because in the peculiarity of that case it was held that the said petitioner was engaged as a Chowkidar and later on assignment of work as a Work Sarkar was no - 5 - promotion and, therefore, the Court held that the benefit of time bound promotion cannot be taken away on the fictional basis of assignment of work as Work Sarkar to be a case of promotion. It is not the case of the petitioner or the facts of the similar kind. Admitted position is that the petitioner had been given promotion on the post of time keeper and the time bound promotion will have to be reckoned from the date of his promotion which is 7.1.1969. The authorities have done no wrong in passing Annexure-A. Benefit of re-worked promotion order will accrue to the petitioner in accordance with the date indicated in Annexure-A. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)