IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7525 of 2005 HARI PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6/ 19/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application is for quashing of the order of the Head Master entered in the service book of the petitioner by which time bound promotion granted to the petitioner on completion of ten years of service with effect from 1.4.1982 reckoning his appointment as on 3.3.1972 has been shifted to 9.1.1990 with orders for consequential recovery for the period in between 1.4.1982 and 9.1.1990 which is stated to have been effected also. Learned counsel for the State contended that the period for computing time bound promotion had to be reckoned from the date that the petitioner acquired the qualification for Graduate Trained Scale. There was, thus, no error in the order. This aspect of the matter stands concluded by a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2002(1) P.L.J.R. 329 (Bharat Prasad Chourasia v. State of Bihar) relied upon by the petitioners. In the said judgement, this Court had noticed that the petitioners therein appointed before 18.9.1972 at the time of appointment did not possess the qualification of teachers training. They were, therefore, given untrained scale of pay. Subsequently, they passed the teachers’ training examination when they were given the Graduate Trained Scale of pay. Then on 2 completion of 10 years from their respective dates of initial appointment each of them were allowed first time bound promotion. At paragraph-6 of the judgement it was then noticed that the first time bound promotion was in discord with the basic idea of time bound promotion but in consonance with Government decisions and circulars. On a detailed consideration of relevant Government Circulars, the Court came to the conclusion that the Government itself intended to award the benefit of time bound promotion after completion of ten years from the date of initial appointment. That significance lay in the issue of the appointments made before 18.9.1972 when a qualification in teachers’ training was not an essential requirement for appointment as an assistant teacher in a High School which came to be enforced only from 18.9.1972. The petitioner being an appointee of 3.3.1972 clearly comes within that exception. The Court then at paragraph-19 of the judgement noticed that persons like the petitioner appointed prior to 18.9.1972 were at the end of their career and that it would be quite unjust improper and inequitable to now turn back and say that the time bound promotion granted to them were irregular and then to recover the differential amounts from them. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the case of the present petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid judgement. The writ application succeeds. The petitioner is entitled to be refunded all deductions made from his salary for the period in between 1.4.1982 and 9.1.1990. Let such payments/refunds be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of 3 receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC (Navin Sinha,J)