IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4682 of 2007 YADUNANDAN PRASAD SINHA, son of Late Bhikhari Sinha, resident of village/ mohalla Bahadurpur Bagicha, P.S. Sultanganj, in the district of Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director in Chief, Health Services, govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Magadh Division, Gaya. 5. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad. ----------- 2 16.09.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief:- “I.For commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon to the next higher post with effect from the date on which juniors to the petitioner have been promoted, i.e. 29.6.2005. II.Also for directing the respondents to grant the benefit of second A.C.P. to the petitioner with effect from April, 2001 considering his initial date of appointment, i.e. 9.5.1977, whereas the petitioner has been given the benefit of second A.C.P. with effect from 1.4.2005 by the departmental notification vide Notification No. 208 (3) dated 10.4.2006.” this Court would find that there is lot of misconception in the mind of the petitioner with regard to concept of promotion. When the State Government issues an order posting a person on a higher post by allowing him to remain in his own pay scale, that cannot be called to be a promotion and in fact as is known in the service jurisprudence is a current charge arrangement. In that context the statement of the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ application is apparently incorrect claiming that Dr. Amarnath Jha was promoted to the next higher 2 post by virtue of the notification dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure-4). By the said notification all the persons including Dr. Amarnath Jha were only notified to hold the higher post on their own pay scale and therefore that cannot be said to be promotion. The remaining grievance of the petitioner as with regard to grant of A.C.P. has been fully explained by the respondents in the counter affidavit, copy whereof was served on counsel for the petitioner on 7.4.2008 and yet has not been controverted by the petitioner in any respect. In that regard the respondents in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit have explained as follows:- “9. That it is humbly submitted that in the general category employee the seniority was considered only upto the seniority no.2843 old equivalent to 2863 new/ year 2005 and have been promoted to the higher post of Deputy Superintendent and equivalent in Bihar State whereas the petitioner was at the gradation (seniority) No.3044 old equivalent to 3909 new/ year 2005) which is apparently much below the considered seniority list for promotion. 10. That it is also submitted that it appears from the perusal of the clause 4 of the memo no.4685 dated 25.6.2003 of the finance department issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary Govt. of Bihar. That the A.C.P. benefit given to regular employee. Since the service of the petitioner was regularized in the year 1981 w.e.f. 1.4.1981 the date when the petitioner’s service was regularized.” As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that the benefit of A.C.P. has also been given to the petitioner but only w.e.f. 2005, but the petitioner’s expectation and in fact his belief was that he ought to have earned the benefit of such A.C.P from 2001 by counting his service rendered on ad-hoc 3 basis from 1977. In the opinion of this Court, the A.C.P. scheme is very clear wherein only the regular service is to be taken into caccount. Thus when the service of the petitioner was regularized in the year 1981, his previous service period in between 1977 to 1981 on adhoc basis could not have been taken into consideration for granting him A.C.P. That being so, the prayer of the petitioner as with regard to either grant of A.C.P. w.e.f. 2001 or regular promotion to him is wholly misconceived and this application is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)