IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10785 of 2007 KAMALA SINGH, son of late Ramsakhi Singh, r/o Village- Biddi, P. S. Chainpur, District- Rohtas at present Correspondence Clerk, Field Machinery Division, Talka Manjhi, Bhagalpur. …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Pradhan Secretary, Water Resources Deptt., Patna. 2. Pradhan Secretary, Water Resources Department, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Mithapur, Patna. 5. Executive Engineer, Field Machinery Division, Tilka Manjhi, Bhagalpur. ….Respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. Tara Nath Jha, ADV. For the State :Mr. Rabindra Kr. Choubey, GP-7 :Mr. Manoranjan Kumar,Adv. :Mr. Ravi Shankar, Adv. 4. 01.07.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows;- “(1) That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order issued vide Memo No. 2787 dated 25/07/2007 under the signature of the respondent no. 3 under which it was ordered that the pay fixation of the petitioner is to be made on 19/10/1981 and excess amount is to be recovered and also ordered to cancel the Ist time bound promotion as grated to the petitioner from 27/8/83 and excess amount paid to be recovered and further for issuance 2 of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the pay fixation of the petitioner and the benefit of the Ist time bound promotion as grated to petitioner w.e.f. 27/8/83 on completion of 10 years of his service and further for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction directing the respondents not to recover any amount as paid to the petitioner for discharging of the proper duties in accordance with law.” Mr. Tara Nath Jha, counsel for the petitioner in support of aforementioned prayer would submit that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable on following three grounds: (i) Even though the petitioner was appointed by way of absorption from workcharge establishment while holding the post of work sarkar on the post of correspondence clerk on 19.10.1981, he would be deemed to have been conferred all the benefits with effect from 21.3.1981 in view of government decision dated 30.6.1990 (Annexure-B/1). (ii) The petitioner will be 3 entitled for counting services rendered in the work charge establishment for earning the benefit of time bound promotion in terms of the circular of the finance department contained in Letter No. 1503 dated 27.3.1987. (iii) In any event, the petitioner having made no misrepresentation even in the matter of pay fixation and in the matter of drawing salary and emoluments cannot be now subjected to recovery of the alleged excess amount paid to him. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with reference to the pleadings made in his counter affidavit would refer to the government decision dated 30.6.1990 to contend that as a matter of fact what has been provided in the aforementioned government decision is fixing of notional seniority of all the persons who were sought to be absorbed from work charge establishment into regular establishment. He submits that as a matter of fact, much before coming of the said government decision dated 4 30.6.1990 the authorities at the field level in the rank of executive engineer without there being any specific order had already taken a contrary government decision for not only shifting back his date of appointment in the regular establishment from 19.10.1981 to 21.3.1981 but had also given the petitioner monetary benefit of pay scale by adding one increment and making it payable with effect from 19.10.1981. Counsel for the State would also submit that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take shelter of the government decision dated 27.3.1987 inasmuch as the order of time bound promotion of the petitioner was not based on the said circular and in fact, if that circular is made applicable, the order granting financial benefit of the time bound promotion to the petitioner w.e.f 21.3.1981 will itself become unsustainable inasmuch as the government decision dated 27.3.1987 clearly prohibits grant of any financial benefit prior to the date of order i.e. 27.3.1987. Counsel for the State would finally contend that 5 there is no question of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner rather once the petitioner was himself dealing the establishment in capacity of Correspondence clerk cum Head Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer and therefore if at the field level certain inadmissible payments were claimed by the petitioner contrary to the government decision under the orders of the Executive Engineer, the State Government cannot be made to suffer on account of aforesaid illegal acts of sub- ordinate officers. Having given anxious considerations to the aforementioned submissions, this court is also of the considered opinion that all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above, cannot be accepted. The first submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was rightly given the pay fixation benefit w.e.f. 21.3.1981 even though he came to be absorbed on the post of correspondence 6 clerk on 19.10.1981 in fact would lead to ridiculous position in law. The whole idea of the Government to bring the employees of work charge establishment by government decision dated 19.2.1981 was to absorb the persons having appropriate qualification on an equivalent vacant post available in the regular establishment. Therefore, a work sarkar like the petitioner could not have been absorbed against a higher post of Correspondence clerk or the Accounts clerk merely because the petitioner had qualification and had fulfilled the eligibility conditions of such higher post of the clerk. As a matter of fact for this very purpose the State Government’s decision dated 19.2.1981 itself envisaged constitution of duly well represented selection committee which had to go into the service records and to select the persons for the purposes of absorption on an equivalent post. Such policy infact did not envisage giving promotion to any one from the post of work sarkar in work charge establishment to the post of Correspondence/Accounts clerk in regular 7 establishment. Therefore, what the petitioner got on 19.10.1981 while being absorbed on the post of correspondence clerk in the regular establishment from the post of work sarkar in the work charge establishment was infact a fresh entry in service with certain conditions as envisaged in the government decision for counting of the past services for the purpose of payment of pension only. For any thing beyond that the petitioner will always be bound by the order by which he was given higher pay on 19.10.1981. From perusal of records this also becomes clear that the government decision dated 30.6.1990 infact came into existence after almost 9 years of the petitioner already being regularized on the post of correspondence clerk. It has to be always kept in mind that under the government orders passed by different authorities at field level, it was only an officer in rank of Chief Engineers who were empowered to regularize the service of employees of the work charge establishment and 8 therefore when different dates were given to the employees of work charge establishment while their being brought in the regular establishment, the government came out with a decision to fix their seniority by giving a deemed date and that date was only in terms of earlier government order dated 19.2.1981. Since the said government decision dated 19.2.1981 had fixed one month period for regularizing service on an equivalent post and therefore a deemed date of seniority for such category of work charge establishment brought in the regular service was fixed by the government decision dated 30.6.1990, which reads as follows:- Þfcgkj ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkxA i=kad%&4@LFkk la0 &1014@89&4252@iVuk] fnukad % 30-6-90 izs"kd % Jh vuUr izlkn flUgk] ljdkj ds voj lfpoA lsok esa] lHkh eq[; vfHk;ark] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] iVukA fo"k;%& ty lalk/ku foHkkx esa 21@8@75 ls iwoZ dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkukUrxZr fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dks fu/kkZfjr LFkkiukUrxZr fd;s x;s lek;kstu ds QyLo:i mudh ikjL;fjd ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k ds lEcU/k esaA 9 egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa dguk gS fd ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds fuxZr i=kad 941 fnukad 19-2-81 ds vkyksd esa ftu dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer LFkkiukUrxZr lek;kstu djus dk vkns”k fn;k x;k Fkk rn~laca/kh vkns'k dk vuqikyu fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds vanj lHkh eq[; vfHk;arkvksa }kjk ugha fd;k tk ldkA ftlds dkj.k ,sls deZpkfj;ksa dk ikjLifjd ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k dSls fd;k tk; ;g iz'u ljdkj ds fopkjk/khu Fkk] ftlij lE;d fopkjksijkUr ljdkj us fu.kZ; fy;k gSs fd oSls dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa ftUgs fu;fer LFkkiUrxZr lek;ksftr fd;k x;k gS mldh ikjLifjd ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k fnukad 21-3-81 ls bl 'krZ ds lkFk fn;k tkrk gSs fd blds QyLo:i fdlh Hkh deZpkjh dks fdlh rjg dk vkfFkZd ykHk ns; ugha gksxkA fo'oklHkktu g0@& {øvuUr izlkn flUgkÀ ljdkj ds voj lfpo Kki la0 %& 4252 iVuk] fnukad 30-6-90 izfrfyfi % egkea=h] xaMd ;kstuk deZpkjh dY;k.k la?k fon~;kifr ekxZ dks mudh ekax la0 7 ds izlax esa lwpuk ,oa vko';d dkjokbZ gsrq izsf’kr A g0@& {øvuUr izlkn flUgkÀ ljdkj ds voj lfpoÞ From the reading of the aforementioned government circular dated 30.6.1990 it is very clear that it relates only to fixation of inter se seniority and giving a deemed date on 21.3.1981 to all such employees who were regularized in terms of government decision dated 19.2.1981 and that too with a clear 10 stipulation that no financial benefit of any nature whatsoever shall be given on account of such shifting of date of deemed seniority. Once this position becomes clear the steps taken by the Executive Engineer under whom the petitioner was posted and was regularised as a correspondence clerk was itself illegal inasmuch as on 19.10.1981 the petitioner's basic pay was fixed at Rs.590 in pay scale of Rs.580-10-620-15-770 EB-15-860 whereas he was not entitled either for the higher post of Correspondence Clerk or the higher pay scale or even grant of an increment by fixing his basic pay in terms of the circular of the State Government dated 19.2.1981. Even otherwise the petitioner having entered into service on the post of correspondence clerk only 19.10.1981 he could not have been given any higher amount than the basic pay of Rs.580 in the pay scale of Rs. 580-860. The Service book produced by the petitioner himself would however itself go to show that he was given basic pay of Rs.590 on 19.10.1981 which was impermissible on that day as 11 even subsequent government circular dated 30.6.1990 was not in existence in October 1981. The further submission of counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on a supplementary affidavit and document contained as annexure-3 will also be of no avail inasmuch as it would appear that on 22.9.1992 i.e. almost after 11 years of the petitioner entering in service in the regular establishment was shown to have been favoured with certain orders as with regard payment of financial entitlement. Since the reference has been made on the aforementioned order dated 22.9.1992 this Court would find it appropriate to quote it in extenso which reads as follows;- dk;kZy; vkns'k Þ bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 305 fnukad 26-4-91 esa vaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq, eq[; vfHk;Urk ty lalk/ku foHkkx fMgjh ds i=kad 4169 fnukad 25-9-90 ds vkyksd esa Jh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid Vadd ds osrueku 284 ls 372 esa ----- 284-00 izfrekg fnukad 21-3-81 dks osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkrk gS vkfFkZd ykHk 19-10-81 ls ns; gksxkA mDr osru fu/kkZj.k esa fdlh izdkj dh vlaxfr ik;s tkus ij vf/kd Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k Jh flag ls dkV yh tk,xh] ftlds fy, mudk dksbZ nkok ekU; ugha gksxkA iwoZ esa tks vf/kd jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS mldh dVkSrh rhu cjkcj fd'rksa esa dj yh tk;sxhA 12 dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk i=kad 498 fnukad 22-9-92 {ks= ;U= ize.My nqxkZorh ¼{ks0½ izfrfyfi ¼1½ Jh deyk flag i=kpkj fyfid@Vadd ¼2½ dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh lklkjke ¼3½ osru foi= fyfid {ks= ;a= ize.My nqxkZokrh dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd iwoZ esa vf/kd Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dk fooj.kh rS;kj dj rhu cjkcj fd'rksa esa dVkSrh dj yh tk;sA g0@& dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk {ks= ;U= ize.My nqxkZorh ¼jksgrkl½Þ If the contents of the aforementioned order has to be understood in the context of service history of petitioner it is found that his pay fixation was being sought to be in scale of Rs.284-372 as on 22.9.1992 w.e.f. 21.3.1981 whereas his service book would go to show that at the time of entry of the petitioner in service in regular establishment on 19.10.1981 itself he had got the pay scale of Rs.580-860 with one increment w.e.f. 21.3.1981 while all that he was entitled was his own pay for an equivalent post of work sarkar in the pay scale of Rs. 220-315 (unrevised) and Rs. 535-765 (revised) as is clear from the impugned order:- 13 eq[; vfHk;ark] ;ka dk dk;kZy; ty lalk/ku foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk i=kad&1@dk LFkk0&03&014@07 iVuk] fnukad vkns'k v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark ¼;kaf=d] flapkbZ ;kaf=d] vapy ehBkiqj] iVuk dk i=kad &940 fnukad 24-4-07 ,oa dk;kZikyd vfHk;ark] {ks= ,oa izeaMy] Hkkxyiqj ds i=kad 420 fnukad 29-3-07 ds }kjk Hkh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid dks iznRr izFke dkyc) izksUufr dh frfFk ,oa ns;rk ds laca/k esa leqfpr vkns'k dh ekax fd;k x;k gS ds vkyksd esa Jh flag ds lsok iqfLrdk dks leh{kk fd;k x;kA leh{kk esa ik;k x;k fd Jh deyk flag dks izFke fu;qfDr dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dk;Zn'kZd ds in ij fnukad 29-8-73 dks dh x;hA Jh flag dk;Zn'kZd ¼dk;ZHkkfjr½ dks foHkkxh; i=kad 941 fnukad 19-2-81 ds dze esa eq[; vfHk;ark] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] fMgjh ds i=kad 2171 fnukad 12-12-81 }kjk fu;fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij osrueku 284&372@& iqufjf{kr osrueku 500&660@& ¼ esa lek;ksftr fd;k x;kA rFkk osru ds i'pkr~ os fnukad 19-10-81 dks fucaf/kr LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij ;ksxnku fn;sA foHkkxh; i=kad 4252 fnukad 30-6-90 esa fufgr izko/kkukuqlkj 1-3-81 ds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk dk ykHk fn;k x;k u fd okf"kZd ykHk] ijUrq Jh flag dks fnukad 21-3-81 ls tks osrueku 284&372@ dk vkfFkZd ykHk ns fn;k x;k gSA tcfd 21-3-81 dks Jh flag dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dk;Z n'kZd ds in ij osrueku 220&315 iqujhf{kr osrueku 535&765@½ esa dk;Zjr FksA vr,o fnukad 21-3-81 ls fnukad 18-10-81 rd fu;fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid dk osrueku 264&372@& dk fn;k x;k ykHk lqlaxr ugha gS vkSj vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k olwyuh; gSA vr% vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid dks fnukad 21-3-81 ls fnukad 18-10-81 rd fu;fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid dk osrueku 284&372@& dk fn;k x;k ykHk lqlaxr ugha gS vkSj vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k olwyuh; gSA vr% vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid dks fnukad 21-3-81 dh txg fu;fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij ;ksxnku dh frfFk 19-10-81 dks ,dhd`r osrueku 284&372@& ¼iqujhf{kr osrueku 590&860@&½ esa osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk; rFkk vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k dks olwyh Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid ls dj yh tk;A 14 ¼2½ Jh deyk flag] dh izFke fu;qfDr dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dk;Zn'kZd ds in ij fnukad 29-8-73 dks dh x;hA Jh flag] dk;ZHkkfjr dk;Zn'kZd dks fnukad 19-10-81 ls fu;fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij lek;ksftr fd;k x;kA Li’V gS fd nksuks gh LFkkiuk ,oa in fHkUu FksA foRr foHkkx ds i=kad 920 fnukad 6-3-90 esa Li"V mYys[k gS fd ,d gh lEoxZ ds in ij yxkrkj 10 o"kZ@ 25 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh djus okys dehZ dks ge izFke@f}rh; dkyc)@izksUufr vuqekU; gSA fnukad 27-8-83 dks Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid ,d gh laoxZ o in ij yxkrkj nl o"kkZs dh lsok iwjh ugha djrs gSA vr% foRr foHkkx ds i=kad 920 fnukad 6-3-90 ds vkyksd esa Jh flag dks fnukad 27-8-83 ls i=kpkj fyfid ds lanHkZ esa nh x;h izFke dkyc) izksUufr dks jn~n fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd iznRr izFke dkyc) izksUufr ds QyLo:i vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k dh olwyhs] i=kpkj fyfid ls dj yh tk;A g0@& eq[; vfHk;ark ¼;kaf=d½ Kkikad 2787 iVuk] fnukad 25-7-2007 izfrfyfi Jh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid {ks= ;a= izeaMy] Hkkxyiqj@ dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] ;ka] {ks= ;a= izeaMy] eqt¶Qjiqj dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark lka ¼Hkkxyiqj dks funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa lqlaxr fu;eksa ds rgr Jh flag i=kpkj fyfid dk osru fu/kkZj.k dj vf/kd Hkqxrku dks ugha lk{; dks olwyh djuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk; rFkk mldh izfof"V lsok iqfLrdk esa dh tk;A d`r dkjokbZ ls voxr djk;k tk;A g0@& 25-7-07 eq[; vfHk;ark ¼;kaf=d½ i=kad 931 @ Hkkxyiqj] fnukad 2-8-07 izfrfyfi Jh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid] {ks= izeaMy] Hkkxyiqj dks lwpukFkZ izsf’krA g0@& 31-7-07 dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark {ks=h; ize.My] HkkxyiqjA Thus it is absolutely clear that 15 authorities after verifying the service records of the petitioner were satisfied that the petitioner was illegally paid financial benefit also for the period 21.3.1981 to 19.10.1981 which was sought to be recovered in view of the impugned order. In view of the above noted fact, this Court would find no anomaly or error in this part of the decision inasmuch as Circular of the State Government dated 30.6.1990 ultimately made it clear that no financial benefit was to be extended in such cases. Added to it, there is a settled principle under service jurisprudence that a person when appointed will always be entitled to be a pay scale and salary only from the date of appointment i.e. 19.10.1981. There being no other condition imposed in the earlier order the petitioner could not have been given any benefit of pay fixation prior to 19.10.1981 and any amount drawn in excess beyond entitlement was definitely recoverable as held in the judgment of full bench of this Court in the case of 16 Ram Binod Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in 2007(3)BBCJ 467. The next aspect relates to recovery of additional amounts drawn by the petitioner by way of time bound promotion. The petitioner as noted above came in the cadre of correspondence clerk on 19.10.1981 and as such he could not have been given time bound promotion by taking into account his length of service in work charge establishment inasmuch as there was a conscious decision on the date such time bound promotion was given to him under the order of authority granting time bound promotion to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-1 dated 9.11.1987 from its bare it would be found that the Superintendent Engineer who had passed an order of granting time bound promotion had not taken into account the spirit of resolution of Finance Department No. 10770 dated 30.12.81 or the circular of Finance Department as contained in Letter no.4245 dated 16.7.1985 inasmuch as none of the aforementioned two circulars in fact, 17 envisage counting of past services rendered in the work charge establishment for being considered for time bound promotion in a different cadre. Obviously, on the date such time bound promotion was given to the petitioner initially w.e.f. 1.4.1985 and later on regularized w.e.f. 27.8.1983, he had not completed a period of ten years on the post of Correspondence Clerk and thus was ineligible for such time bound promotion. Even otherwise once the petitioner had got the higher post and pay of Correspondence Clerk on 12.10.1981 by way of upgradation of his pay scale of the post of work sarkar held by him w.e.f. 20.8.1973, he was not entitled for being granted time bound promotion w.e.f. 27.8.1983 and as such the claim of the petitioner for retaining his time bound promotion must be and is hereby rejected. There is infact no government decision to show that the petitioner was entitled for counting his services of work sarkar in the work charge establishment by virtue of his being appointed as work sarkar on 27.8.1973. 18 That decision taken by the Superintendent Engineer being in teeth of the recommendation of fourth pay revision committee as notified by the Finance Department in its resolution dated 30.12.1981, the consequential order in favour of the petitioner could not have been allowed to stand once the same had come to the notice of the competent authority. The concept of time bound promotion was primarily to remove the deprivation of financial benefit on account of stagnation on a particular post in a particular cadre and thus was not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as admittedly, the petitioner had entered in new cadre by way of absorption/ appointment by way of internal recruitment, only w.e.f. 19.10.1981 and therefore his time bound promotion in terms of the government resolution dated 30.12.1981, could have matured only w.e.f. 19.10.1991 and not earlier. Counsel for the petitioner, however, also strenuously relied to defend 19 the order of time bound promotion (Annexure-1) on the strength of a government decision dated 27.3.1987. The aforementioned government decision in fact, refers to an earlier government decision dated 27.2.1984 in which the government had taken a conscious decision in keeping with the resolution of the State Government dated 30.12.1981 that the period of services rendered in the work charge establishment will not be taken into account for the purpose of counting the period of time bound promotion. Thereafter, the government had reconsidered its earlier decision dated 27.3.1987 and it had taken a decision that even for the purposes of selection grade or at the time of time bound promotion the service rendered in the work charge establishment could be counted provided there was no supercession of any regular employee. In that view of the matter as well the order dated 27.3.1987 could be of little avail for the petitioner. It was also submitted that another rider in the time bound promotion given in 20 terms of the aforementioned revised decision could not adversely affect any financial benefit earned by the petitioner prior to the date of order i.e. 27.3.1987. In order to appreciate this part of the aspect paragraph 2 and 3(a) and (b) being the relevant part of the aforementioned circular is quoted hereinbelow; Þ2- foRr foHkkx ds Kki la[;k 3@ih0 vkj0 lh0 45&83&1560 fnukad 27-2-84 ds }kjk ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd ljdkjh lsod dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dh xbZ lsok dkyc) izksUufr ds fy, ifjxf.kr ugh dh tk;xhA 3 ¼,½ ,sls dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkjh ftudh orZeku vuqns'kksa ds v/khu isa'ku ,oa miknku vuqekU; gksrk gS muds }kjk dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa fcrk;h xbZ iwjh lsokof/k dks 'kkfey djrs gq, isa'ku ,oa miknku ds fy, DokfyQkbZx ihjha;Ma dh x.kuk dh tk;xh o'kÙksZ ,slk djrs le; dk;ZHkkfjr lsok ls fdruh vof/k isa'ku ;ksX; lsok,¡ tksM+h tk;sxh mruh vof/k esa va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa iznÙk ljdkjh va'knku vxj dksbZ gks dh jkf'k ljdkj dks ykSVk nsuh gksxh rFkk jkT; dsk"k esa tek dj nsuh gksxhA 3 ¼ch½ fu;fer LFkkiuk esa vkus ds i'pkr dk;ZHkkfjr lsokof/k dks tksM+rs gq, lEcfU/kr deZpkfj;ksa dks izoj dksfV ,oa dkyc) izksUufr dh lqfo/kk miyC/k djk;h tk; c'kÙksZ fd mlls fdlh Hkh fu;fer deZpkjh dh ojh;rk dk vodze.k ugh gksrk gks ojh; izoj dksfV uk dkyc) izksUufr ds lEcU/k esa bl vkns'k ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ds iwoZ dk dksbZ Hkh cdk;k vuqekU; ugha gksxkA bl izlax esa iwoZ esa fuxZr lHkh vkns'k ,oa vuqns'k bl va'k rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;sxsAß In the case of the petitioner as per Annexure-1 financial benefit however was given w.e.f. 27.10.1983 and thus if 21 the government circular dated 27.3.1987 was to be made applicable the same could not have even otherwise give the benefit to the petitioner at least for period 27.8.1983 to 27.3.1987. Normally in other condition, if the petitioner’s time bound promotion was in terms of aforesaid government decision, this could have been easily rectified by substituting the date of 27.10.83 to 27.3.1987 but there is another unsurmountable difficulty for the petitioner inasmuch as the government subsequently had again reconsidered the whole thing and had taken conscious decision on 6.3.1990 in which it was clarified that time bound promotion could only be given if a person had completed 10 years of service in cadre in which he had not been given any promotion earlier. Such being the stringent provisions of time bound promotion, it would therefore leave the petitioner with no other option but to forego his illegal time bound promotion inasmuch as