IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12607 of 2006 SITARAM MAHTO s/o Late Nunu Mahto, resident of village Kodaria, P. S. Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur…..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary 2. The Collector, Samastipur. 3. The District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur. 5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Morwa, District- Samastipur. 6. Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-01. … Respondents. ----------- 4. 20.08.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The following prayer of the petitioner; “(I) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of pay which accrued to the petitioner on account of his promotion to the post of Basic Health Worker on 12.12.1986 and 2nd Time Bound Promotion on 7.10.1993.” gets answered from paragraph 4 to 7 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows;- “(4) That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Dressor with effect from 7.10.1968 and he joined on the said post on 7.10.1968. (5) That consequent upon the petitioner was given first time bound promotion (Junior Selection Grade) on the post of Dressor vide letter No. 3684 dated 2.12.1985 in the pay scale of Rs.425-605 with effect from 1.4.1981. (6) That soon thereafter the petitioner was promoted on the post of Basic Health Worker (Annexure-1) w.e.f. 2 from 12.12.1986. (7) That it shall not be out of place to submit here that the petitioner was not entitled for nay further promotion in law.” The aforementioned facts mentioned in the counter affidavit despite service of a copy of the counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioner, have not been controverted by the petitioner and as such it must be held that at least those facts are admitted by the petitioner. Once this aspect becomes clear that the petitioner was granted promotion in junior selection grade w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and was also granted promotion on the post of Basic Health Worker on 12.12.1986, there would be no question of grant of any second time bound promotion inasmuch as the policy itself envisages that the time bound promotion would be admissible to an employee who had not earned promotion either in 10 years or 25 years of his length of service. There being already two promotions given to the petitioner, as noted above, he would not be entitled for grant of second time bound promotion. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 3