IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7360 of 2009 Ram Chandra Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 2/ 02/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims the benefit of second time bound promotion. The date of eligibility is acknowledged by the respondents in their counter affidavit as 15.12.1992. The petitioner in his writ petition alleges that he has been promoted as Block Agriculture Officer in 1994. The respondents in their counter affidavit state that he was promoted on 16.9.2004. Both, the petitioner and the State, have not brought the promotion order on record. The Court is therefore not able to decipher if this substantive promotion was with retrospective effect from a date prior to 15.12.1992 or only from 16.9.1994. If it was retrospective, the stand of the respondents that he is not entitled to second time bound promotion on account of substantive promotion during that period requires no interference. But, if the substantive promotion was from 16.9.1994 after his eligibility to the second time bound promotion acknowledged as 15.12.1992, the petitioner has a case to be considered for grant of second time bound promotion. 2 The respondents in their counter affidavit contended that the petitioner is not entitled to increments from 1997 to 2005 as according to their records he had not passed the departmental accounts examination. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to represent before the authorities on both the aspects along with necessary materials in support of his claims. If the petitioner represents within a period of four weeks only in that event are the respondents required to consider his claims and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the same. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)