IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13222 of 2000 QAMRUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 29.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the State when the matter was called out although a counter affidavit has been filed. The claim of the petitioner is for grant of first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 in the scale of Rs 680-965/ as revised from time to time and for grant of second time bound promotion with effect from 21.12.1987 in the scale of Rs 730-1080/ as revised from time to time. The petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in the office of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Chapra on 21.12.1962. On 13.1.1996 by an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Saran Division , Chapra he was exempted from passing the departmental examination for time bound promotion with effect from the date of issuance of the order. Notwithstanding the same grant of time bound promotion to him remained elusive. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 200(4) PLJR 262(Maheshwar Prasad Singh & ors vs. The State of - 2 - Bihar & ors) more particularly on the discussion at paragraphs 13 and 14 to submit that on 1.4.1981 there was no impediment to grant of time bound promotion to the petitioners allegedly on account of not having passed departmental examination. With regard to second time bound promotion, it is stated that the petitioner in any event is entitled to the same from the date of exemption i.e. 13.1.1996. The counter affidavit of the respondents only urges that the petitioner belongs to the State cadre of clerk of the Transport department and not the Mufassil cadre. Any exemption therefore granted to him by the Divisional Commissioner was not sufficient as the Divisional Commissioner was competent to grant exemption only to persons of the Mufassil cadre. This Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) has held that correction in rule 157(3) (J) of the Board’s Miscellaneous Rules by executive instructions came to be made on 29.3.1982 requiring passing of the departmental examination as a condition for promotion to selection grade. With regard to the period in between 1.5.80 - 3 - and 29.3.82, it has been held that in view of amalgamation of the posts of L.D. and U. D. Clerks creating a unified cadre of clerks only and in the absence of any provision requiring the clerks to pass Accounts examination for promotion to selection grade, there was no impediment to the grant of promotion to those acquiring eligibility between the aforesaid dates. The petitioner’s claim for time bound promotion from 1.4.1981 falls within the dates 1.5.80 and 29.3.82. The court , therefore, holds that he is entitled to the benefit of first time bound promotion inclusive of the revised scale and entitled to full monetary benefit of the same. In so far as the issue of second time bound promotion is concerned, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the same only from 13.1.1996,if eligible, on the objection of the respondents that the exemption was not granted by the competent authority. This court considers it appropriate to remand the matter to respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision with regard to legality of the exemption granted to the petitioner for the second time bound promotion. Let respondents pay arrears of the first time bound - 4 - promotion to the petitioner as also take a final decision with regard to eligibility for the second first time bound promotion as discussed above. Both to be complied within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. shahid (Navin Sinha, J)