IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6568 of 2010 1. Ganga Sagar Singh, S/O Late Krishna Singh, R/O Village- Mahuari, P.S - Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhavan, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary , Water Resource Department, Sinchai Bhavan, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department,Aurangabad. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. R. N. Mukhopadhya, Adv. For the A.G.:- Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Adv. Mr. R. R. Tiwari, Adv. ---------------- 3. 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Accountant General. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2009 which denies him first time bound promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer, from which he retired on 31.7.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 31.8.1961 in the Subordinate Engineering Service. On 27.12.1978 he was promoted in the Bihar Engineering Service Class- II as an Assistant Engineer. On 30.12.1981 the respondents promulgated the scheme for time bound promotion after 10 and 25 years of service in pursuance of the 4th pay revision committee report. Since the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer he is not entitled to the benefits of 2 time bound promotion on the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner fulfills the requirement for first time bound promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer. To hold that he was not entitled to the same defeats his right to be considered for one promotion in his career when the policy dated 30.12.1981 visualizes that the Government servant must be given opportunity for at least two promotions in his service career. Emphasizing that the appointment by promotion as Assistant Engineer was in a different cadre and grade, it is submitted that the entitlement for the first time bound promotion thereupon has to be reckoned separately and independently from the period of service as Junior Engineer. Counsel for the State submits that Clause (vii)of the notification dated 30.12.1981 provides that the benefit is not available to such employees who after joining Government service for any reason have been elevated to a higher pay scale by promotion/merger or up-gradation. He further relies on the clarification dated 28.12.2002 issued in this regard vide memo No. 10411. Building up upon the same it is submitted that since the salary of an Assistant Engineer is higher than the pay scale entitlement of a Junior 3 Engineer, on grant of junior selection grade plus senior selection grade on the basic grade of the next higher post there can be no claim for the first time bound promotion by the petitioner. If the scheme for time bound promotion as provided in the notification dated 30.12.1981 is clear in its language, the question of any interpretation of the same does not arise. If the language is not clear, the Court may look into any subsequent notifications/clarifications issued by the respondents. The claim for first time bound promotion is based on an appointment by promotion as Assistant Engineer on 27.12.1978 and completion of ten years service. What may have happened prior thereto is not relevant. If after 27.12.1978 and before his superannuation on 31.7.1997 the petitioner meets the requirement for first time bound promotion under the notification dated 30.12.1981. Clause 11(vii) in no uncertain terms states that “the benefit of the time bound system should be extended to those who are stagnating in the same pay scale to which they were “appointed” or its corresponding revised pay scale. The meaning and purport of the word “appointed” for the purposes of time bound promotion has been explained subsequently by including “promotion”. 4 Therefore if the petitioner has been appointed as an Assistant Engineer by promotion in the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II and he had received no such benefits on the post of Junior Engineer he is held entitled to at least one time bound promotion as an anti stagnation measure before his superannuation. If the interpretation given by the respondents is upheld, the result is that the petitioner is not entitled to even a single time bound promotion as an anti stagnation measure before his superannuation an interpretation which the Court does not uphold. It is not in controversy between the counsel for the parties that the Government has issued certain instructions with regard to payment of arrears of time bound promotion. Needless to state that the consideration now with regard to the payment of entitlement of the petitioner shall have to be done in the light of the same. Let such payment in accordance with the same be complied with within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)