IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4025 of 2006 BHOLA PRASAD SON OF LATE MANGARU RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAVARATANPUR, P.S. DANAPUR, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH TH SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF AUDITOR, BIHAR STATE HOUSING COOPERATIVE FEDERATION, LALIT BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 2 29/10/2010 Certain claim of the petitioner with regard to second time bound promotion and second A.C.P. has been rejected vide annexure-12. This is the speaking order which has been passed on 2.6.2005 after considering the service record of the petitioner and taking into consideration the earlier direction of the High Court contained in annexure-6. It is evident from a reading of annexure-6 coupled with annexure-12 that the petitioner was re- appointed in service in the year 1981 and the High Court in its earlier order clearly directed that for the purposes of pension the entire period of service would be taken - 2 - into consideration but whether such a relief will also apply to time bound promotion is another issue. Obviously the benefit of promotion and other benefits will have to be calculated from the date the petitioner was re-appointed and the High Court directed benefit to the petitioner to a limited extent in the sense that for calculation of pension of the petitioner, entire length of service from the date of initial appointment was to be considered but the same cannot be extended even to cases of promotion as there is no dispute that the petitioner came to be re-appointed and a fact which was never challenged otherwise. Reasoning given for rejection of the second time bound promotion and the benefit of second A.C.P. to the petitioner seems to be cogent and correct. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)