IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.143 of 2009 (Arising out of L.P.A. No. 180 of 2001 dated 22.7.2008) Chandra Shekhar Prasad Sinha, son of late Sahabir Prasad Sinha, ex-forman Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna City Circle, Central Workshop, Gulzarbagh, P.S.- Alamganj, District-Patna………………………………………………...Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Urban Development Deptt., Patna. 2. The Patna Municipal Corporation, through its Administrator, Patna now Municipal Commissioner, P.M.C. 3. The Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. 4. The Chief Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna. ……………………………………………………………..Respondents ----------- 9. 17-10-2011 Heard the parties. The materials on record disclose that writ petition preferred by the petitioner bearing C.W.J.C. No. 836 of 2001 was dismissed on 19th January, 2001 only on the ground of delay and laches. In L.P.A. bearing No. 180 of 2001, by the impugned order under review dated 22nd July, 2008, the Division Bench accepted the case of the petitioner that there was no delay or laches to warrant dismissal of the writ petition. However, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on merits in view of finding of the Writ Court that the Corporation had not granted time bound promotion to any one of its employees and the appellant had failed to bring on record any evidence to show that such observation in the order of the Writ Court was incorrect. Against the Division Bench judgment, the petitioner preferred Special Leave to 2 appeal (Civil) No. CC 5195 of 2009 which was disposed of on 1st May, 2009 vide Annexure-1. That order shows that the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11135 of 1992, Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and others in support of contention that the time bound promotion scheme had been adopted by the Patna Municipal Corporation. In fact, a copy of judgment was annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-4. Before the Apex Court, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner seeking dismissal of the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application. The Apex Court accepted the prayer and in that view of the matter, the present review application has been preferred on 28th May, 2009. The case of the petitioner finds ample support from the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma. In fact that judgment has been followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3127/2000 (Syed Zaki Imam Vs. State of Bihar and others) dated 27.8.2004. Learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation has submitted that time bound promotion was granted to Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma but while agreeing to such proposal, the State Government took the view that 3 such course of action should not be treated as a precedent. According to him, only a decision in principle was taken at one point of time, by the Corporation to accept the proposal in 6th Pay Revision Committee Report for grant of time bound promotions but such decision was not implemented on account of non-availability of funds for the purpose and because the State Government did not approve the decision of the Corporation and did not agree to make over the required funds. The stand of the State Government that the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma should not be treated as a precedent, was considered by this Court in the case of Syed Zaki Imam (supra) and was not accepted because there was no good reason not to follow the judgment delivered in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma, in the cases of other similar situated employees of the Corporation. We find that the Corporation has accepted the judgments of this Court at least in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma and in the case of Syed Zaki Imam and instead of challenging those judgments has granted them time bound promotion and its benefits. This shows that the stand of the Corporation in 4 opposition of such writ petitions was only half hearted and the contest was never taken to the Division Bench or to the Supreme Court. In view of such materials, this Court has no option but to follow the earlier judgments. Accordingly, this review application is allowed. As a result, the order under review is modified so as to allow the writ petition with a mandamus to the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion as was done in the cases of some other employees noticed above and pass a final order within a period of two months from today. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)