IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4470 of 2005 ====================================================== Mahadeo Poddar son of Late Baishakhi Poddar, r/o- village Rajpur, P.O.- Rajpur, P.S.- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director, Panchayat Raj, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur through the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. 4. Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. T.N. Maitin, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nanhe Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nikesh Kumar Mr. Nagendra Sharma A.C. to G.P. 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 7 22-11-2011 Heard Mr. T.N. Maitin for the petitioner and Mr. Nikesh Kumar for the respondent Zile Parishad, Bhagalpur (for short “ the Parishad”). By virtue of an order dated 12.8.1987 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent Parishad, he was granted first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981. On his superannuation, petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2633 of 2001 for payment of retiral dues. The issue relating to recovery of excess amount on Patna High Court CWJC No.4470 of 2005 (7) dt.22-11-2011 2 account of irregular grant of time bound promotion was also raised and considered. By reason of an order passed in the aforesaid writ proceeding, the respondents have not recovered the amount worth Rs. 31,743/- paid to the petitioner on account of grant of first time bound promotion w.e.f.1.4.1981. Admittedly, the petitioner has not cleared the Departmental Accounts examination at all levels till his superannuation. In the present application, a prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to consider his case for grant of 2nd Time Bound Promotion. In view of ratio laid down in Daya Shankar Singh versus The State of Bihar (2010 (3) P.L.J.R. 220), the said claim of the petitioner for grant of second time bound promotion is unsustainable. It is accordingly rejected. As about the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion to the petitioner is concerned, the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated as under in paragraph No. 4: “…………….It would also not be out of place to state here that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2633 of 2001 for payment of his retiral dues which was disposed of on 27.2.2003 directing his payment, but due to paucity of funds the same could not be made available to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner had filed M.J.C. No. 1578/03. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition all the legitimate dues of the petitioner was paid to the petitioner on 14.2.2004. In the show cause filed from the Zila Parishad in Patna High Court CWJC No.4470 of 2005 (7) dt.22-11-2011 3 the contempt petition recovery of Rs. 31,743/- against the petitioner was highlighted but the Hon'ble Court directed not to recover the aforesaid access amount due to wrong fixation of pay in view of the improper first time bound promotion, because of the fact that there was some delay in the payment of the petitioner and order of this Hon'ble Court was not complied in the stipulated time period.” In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, this Court is of the view that no further adjudication is required to be made in respect of the entitlement of the petitioner to receive first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981. The application stands disposed of. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)