IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.131 of 1997 Syed Mohammad Hussain, Son of Late Syed Mohammad Azam, residing at Mohalla Kaghzi, P.S. and P.O. Bihar Sarif, District Nalanda. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Bihar. 2. The Secretary Cum Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna, Department of Agriculture Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 6. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Finance, Patna. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ------ Respondents ----------- 10 6.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That the petitioner had been, prior to retirement on 29.2.1996 serving in the Agriculture Department of the State Government of Bihar and this application is being filed for issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents concerned to allow his salary and allowances according to the Senior Selection Grade scale of Rs. 1575/- to Rs. 2300/- revised to Rs. 3700/- to Rs. 5000/- from 1.4.1983 and consequently allow his salary and allowances according to the Super Time Grade Scale of Rs. 1900/- to Rs. 2500/- revised to Rs. 2 4100/- to Rs. 5300/- from 1.4.1986, at least if not from the date of 9.5.1983, till the date of Superannuation i.e. 29.2.1996 instead of pay in the scale of Rs. 2200/- to Rs. 4000/- only which is the revised scale of Senior Class-II, besides concomitant emoluments.” The length and breath of the case, therefore, is only the entitlement of the petitioner with regard to the two time bound promotion. The respondents have explained this aspect in paragraph no.5 of the supplementary counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “5. That it is stated and submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable on the ground that he had already been granted two regular promotions in his service period. In this context it seems proper to maintain here that initially the petitioner was appointed in this department on 09.05.58 on Non Gazetted Post i.e. Agriculture Inspector. There after he was granted promotion in junior class II w.e.f. 03.09.68. He was also given promotion in senior class-II by Notification No. 5167 dated 31.03.78 by way of merger, which is not treated as promotion. Further it is to submit here that the petitioner has been granted regular promotion in junior selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 vide Notification No. 1466 dated 29.05.02 3 w.e.f. 11.03.92. Thus it is apparent that the petitioner has already got two regular promotion firstly in Junior Class II and secondly in Junior Selection Grade in pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- even after the promotion given in Senior Class-II by way of merger is not counted as promotion. So far as the averment made by the petitioner in this para with regard to First Time Bound Promotion given to his Junior is concerned, it is to submit here in this regard that the Juniors to the petitioner who were not granted two regular promotion in his whole service period has been granted Time Bound Promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 3000- 4500, where as the petitioner has already got two promotions even after his promotion given in Senior Class-II by way of merger is not treated as promotion. It is also to submit here that vide Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.81 issued by the Department of Finance it has been provided that if an employee who is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get single promotion or a second promotion then personnel management should envisage providing at least two promotion to each and every employee in Government service. The first by the end of ten years of Service and the second by the end of 25 years of service. Therefore as per the provision laid down in aforesaid resolution, the petitioner has already been granted two regular promotion. It is also to mention 4 here that on the claim of petitioner to grant Time bound Promotion an opinion was sought from the Department of Finance Which has opined that in the light of facts as aforementioned the claim of the petitioner is not admissible. In the light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide letter no. 9185 dated 10.12.2008.” From reading of the aforementioned explanation of the respondents, which has not been controverted by the petitioner, it becomes absolutely clear that the petitioner was not entitled for Time Bound Promotion because he was given two regular Time Bound Promotions in the year 1968 and 1992 respectively as explained above. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)