IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.799 of 2008 MAHESHWAR JHA son of Late Kanak Lal Jha, resident of village & P.O. Samsa, P.S. Mansurchak, District Begusarai. Versus 1. Bihar State Khadi & Village Industries Board, through its Chief Executive Officer, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan (East),Patna -4. 2. Chairman, Bihar State Khadi & Village Industries Board, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan (East) Patna-4. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Khadi & Village Industries Board, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan (East), Patna – 4. 4. The State of Bihar, through the Industrial Development Commissioner, now the principal Secretary of Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 5. The Industrial Development Commissioner, now the Principal Secretary, Deparetment of Industries, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. ----------- For the Appellant : M/S. Madan Prasad Singh No. II & Arun Kumar Singh For the Respondents 1to 3: Mr. Amitesh Kumar For Respondent nos. 4 & 5: Mr. S. Bharti, J.C. to A.A.G. III ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 10th November, 2008. We heard counsel for the appellant. 2. It is not in dispute that the second time bound - 2 - promotion to the appellant would have been available with effect from 18th February, 1997. That the time bound promotion to the employees in the Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board is founded on the policy of the State government to give time bound promotion to its employees is also not in dispute. It is true that initially the State government took a decision to give its employees second time bound promotion with effect from 1st January, 1996. However, the State government in view of the recommendation of the Fitment Committee in the light of the report of the 5th Pay Revision Committee took a decision to do away with the second time bound promotion on and from 1st January, 1996. In view thereof, the appellant is not entitled to the second time bound promotion. In case the appellant has not got the benefit of the recommendation of the fitment committee, he may approach the concerned authority in that regard. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-