IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1525 of 2007 QAIMUN NISA, wife of late Dr. Md. Shamsuddin Ansari, resident of village Masrakh Purav tola, P.O. Masrakh, P.S. Masrakh, District Saran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director, Indigenous Medicine, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 2 27.8.2010 Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to implead the Accountant General, Bihar as respondent no. 5. Let two copies of the writ petition be served on Mr. J.P. Karn, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar. Having heard counsel for the parties with regard to the following grievance of widow-petitioner, wife of Late Dr. Md. Shamsuddin Ansari, as specifically mentioned in paragraph 1 reading as follows, “(i)For grant of first time bound promotion with effect from 22.4.1993 and its consequential benefits as well as arrears and current benefits. (ii)For grant of junior selection grade with effect from 1988 and its consequential benefits as well as arrears and current benefits.” it would find that the stand of the respondent is not one of the denial but only of either avoidance or matter being still under consideration. Two things are undisputed. The husband of the 2 petitioner was an employee of the State of Bihar who entered in service on 22.4.1983 on the post of Unani Medical Officer. The husband of the petitioner was continued in service of the State of Bihar till his death on 16.1.1995. The policy of the government for time bound promotion vide Resolution of the Finance Department dated 30.12.1981 was prevalent which requires every officer/ employee who had not been promoted in the span of ten years and/or eligible for promotion, was entitled to be given first time bound promotion on expiry of ten years and second time bound promotion after expiry of 25 years of his service. The widow-petitioner after death of her husband, though is receiving retirement benefit on the basis of length of service of 12 years, but then she has only moved this Court for enhancement of the retirement benefit because the amount she is getting on the basis of length of service of her husband in not the one which she is entitled. The State in the counter affidavit does not dispute or deny the fact of admissibility of such time bound promotion to husband of the petitioner, but its plea is that the petitioner has moved late and due to non availability of the post the matter regarding promotion of the petitioner could not be considered. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that colleagues of husband of the petitioner were recently paid the benefits of time bound promotion from the year 1993 and much after the death of her husband in 1995. 3 In the opinion of this Court, if other colleagues of the petitioner have received benefits of such time bound promotion only recently, the petitioner cannot be denied such payment especially when she is only claiming such benefit on behalf of her husband who had met premature death. In such circumstances this Court would direct not only the respondents, officials of the State of Bihar but also the newly added respondent no.5 to ensure that whatever information have to be collected for considering the time bound promotion of husband of the petitioner must be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order so that the final decision in this regard must be taken in the next three months. In any event, a final decision with regard to grant or denial of time bound promotion of husband of the petitioner must be taken by the respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and its financial benefits by way of arrears for the period April, 1993 to the date of death of her husband in January, 1995 should also been extended in the next one month. At the same time whatever enhanced amount of retirement benefit would become admissible to the petitioner on account of grant of such time bound promotion to her husband, difference there of should also be paid to the petitioner in the next three months from the date of taking such decision by the respondents. It goes without saying that if the respondents would 4 reject claim of the time bound promotion of husband of the petitioner, they would not only be required to pass a reasoned order but also communicate the same to the widow petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due within the aforementioned period of six months. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)