IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7083 of 2010 Binod Kumar Chaudhary, son of Shri Vimal Chandra Chaudhary, resident of village Manihari (Dharmashala Road, P.S. Manihari, District Katihar, presently posted as Treasury Guard in the Office of Executive Engineer, Vigilance Division-3 (Headquarter), Rural Work Department, Patna…………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary - cum - Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer – in – Chief – cum - Additional Commissioner - cum - Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Ganga Pool Pariyojna Upbhag, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Ganga Pool Anchal No.2, Road Construction Department, Bhagalpur. 6. The Technical Advisor, Ganga Pool Anchal No.2, Road Construction Department, Bhagalpur. 7. The Executive Engineer, Vigilance Division-3 (Hqr.), Rural Works Department, Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Road Division, Madhepura…………………………………Respondents ----------- 2 27.01.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Though multiple prayer have been made in the writ application for a direction to the respondents in respect of his promotion to the post of class III, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the time of arguments, has confined the relief sought for from this Court by 2 petitioner in respect of time bound promotion in the scale and benefits of A.C.P. scheme only. It is not disputed that having worked under the work charged establishment for certain length of time, petitioner was regularized in the regular establishment with effect from 16.02.1999. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Memo No.3 / P.A.R – 03–1/92/5000 dated 21st September, 1992, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure- 16 with the rejoinder of the petitioner to the counter affidavit. This memo of the Government shows that the employees, who were taken into regular establishment from work charged establishment, are also held entitled for time bound promotion in terms of Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court umpteen times with a number of claims. Finally, on the basis of the order passed by a Division Bench in his Letters Patent Appeal No.17 of 2005 disposed of on 12.01.2005, he filed the representation which has been rejected by 3 the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Bridge Circle No.II, Road Construction Department vide Annexure-1. In the impugned order it has been held that petitioner is not entitled for his promotion to the post of Class III. However, it has been observed that the petitioner can raise his claim for grant of benefits of A.C.P. scheme with the present Department under which he is working. Learned Additional Advocate General No.V submits that in view of the memo of the Government dated 21.09.1992, petitioner can raise a claim for grant of time bound promotion counting length of service rendered under the work charged establishment. Similarly, he submits that for grant of benefit of A.C.P. scheme also, he can raise a claim with the present Department which shall be considered in view of the Government decision and shall be dealt with and disposed of accordingly. A.A.G. No. V informs that the petitioner is at present working under the Rural Works Department and is posted under respondent no.7. 4 In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent no.7, Executive Engineer, Vigilance Division-3 (Hqr.), Rural Works Department, Patna for grant of time bound promotion in the scale as well as for grant of benefit of A.C.P. scheme. Respondent no.7 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, if filed for the above claims, taking into account the Government decisions, as may be found applicable in the case of the petitioner, and dispose of the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for grant of benefits of the same, consequential orders for release of monetary benefits shall also be issued within that very time. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)