IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6800 of 2007 BRAJ NANDAN SINGH, son of late Chulhan Prasad Singh, resident of village Tarwan, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. The Director, Directorate of Ground Water, Mithapur, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Investigation Circle, Mithapur, Patna … Respondents. ----------- CWJC No.7072 of 2008 BRAJ NANDAN SINGH, son of late Chulhan Prasad Singh, resident of village Tarwan, P.S Phulwari Sharif, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Patna 3. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Investigation Circle, Mithapur, Patna 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna … Respondents. --------- 2. 11.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer in C.W.J.C.No. 6800/2007 is to quash the order dated 17.4.2007 whereby and whereunder the promotion earlier given to the petitioner in the work charge establishment against higher post has been cancelled and the petitioner has been reverted to his parent post on which his regularization was made from the work charge 2 establishment into regular establishment. Counsel for the petitioner in fact while filing this writ application which is second round of litigation after dismissal of his earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C.No. 10394/2000, has submitted that the impugned order to the effect that no promotion was possible in the work charge establishment was contrary to the provisions in P.W.D.Code and that a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 1st November, 2006 in L.P.A.No. 836/1997 has held that such promotion even in work charge establishment was possible. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the very concept of work charge establishment is a temporary establishment wherein the posts are available under the plan head from year to year basis and therefore, there would be no question of earning promotion on such temporary tenure post. Counsel would also refer to the decision of the Government dated 19.2.1981 wherein the scheme of regularization for work charge employees was meant only to bring the employee from that 3 post to regular establishment on which he was continuing in work charge establishment. Counsel for the State has also relied on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Nand Jha & ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2007(4) PLJR 259, wherein it has been held that the work charge establishment has a separate entity than that of regular establishment and that a person engaged to discharge duty of a work charge establishment cannot be treated to be a permanent establishment so as to be vested right of any promotion in regular establishment. This Court would find that when the petitioner by an order dated 17th September, 1982 passed by the Chief Engineer of Minor Irrigation Department was promoted on a provisional basis from the post of Muharrir in work charge establishment to the post of Correspondence Clerk in regular establishment the same was itself against the Government decision dated 19.2.1981 clearly laying down absorption of work charge employees in regular establishment against that very post on which he was 4 continuing in the work charge establishment. That being so, the order passed by the Chief Engineer of giving provisional promotion was wholly without jurisdiction and against the decision of the Government and at least on that basis the petitioner could not have got any substantial right to continue against the post of Correspondence Clerk. Consequently the impugned order passed in this case does not suffer from any infirmity and to that extent the direction therein reverting re-designating the petitioner on the post of Muharrir also does not suffer from any error. As a matter of fact on the basis of such re-designation/ reversion of the petitioner on the post of Muharrir he will be entitled for his time bound promotion in keeping with the Government decision which lays down that even by taking into account of the functioning in the work charge period, two time bound promotions if possible must be given to the employee. To that extent the impugned order needs to be clarified inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioner is that his pay scale has not yet 5 been calculated in the time bound pay scale and infact no clear order of two time bound promotion on the basis of his service rendered on the post of Muharrir has been passed by the Respondent till date. This Court, therefore, while holding that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity would dispose the first writ petition of the petitioner C.W.J.C.No. 6800/2007, with a direction to the respondents to fix the salary and emolument of the petitioner on the post of Muharrir from due date as also by fixing his pay scale by granting him two time bound promotions if the same were admissible to him prior to 1.1.1996. The petitioner will also be entitled for consideration of his case in ACP if he would qualify on the basis of his continuance in service on the post of Muharrir. Whatever be the entitlement of the petitioner in capacity of Muharrir either on the basis of two time bound promotions and/or ACP must be decided and communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 6 The next case, C.W.J.C.No. 7072/2008 of the petitioner being solely dependent on the result of his earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 6800/2007, is also accordingly disposed of with a direction to the authorities that once the salary of the petitioner on the post of Muharrir including time bound promotion and/or ACP is fixed, the final payment of all retirement benefit on the basis of last pay drawn in capacity of Muharrir must be also decided within a period of three months from the date of passing of an order as indicated above. All retirement benefit of the petitioner in the pay scale of Muharrir with time bound promotions must be finalized and paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Both the writ applications are accordingly disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/