IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.878 of 1997 MALICK MOHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTER, son of late Sri Wahiduddin Ahmad Malick, residing at New Millat Colony, Sector III (Bagicha Mein), P.O. Phulwari Sharif, P.S. Danapur, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Animal Husbandry Commissioner, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry, New Secretariat, Patna 4. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry Department, New Secretariat, Patna 5. Director of Animal Husbandry Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat, Patna 6. Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna 7. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna … Respondents ----------- 4. 11.5.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In the considered opinion of this Court the following prayer of the petitioner: “That the petitioner had been, prior to retirement on 31.1.1992 serving in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government of Bihar and this application is being filed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents concerned to allow his salary and allowances according to the Senior Selection Grade of Rs.1575/- to Rs.2300/- revised to Rs.3700/- to Rs.5000/- only from 1.4.1982 and consequently allow his salary and 2 allowances according to the Super Time Grade Scale of Rs.1900/- to Rs.2500/- revised to Rs.4100/- to Rs.5300/- from 1.4.1985, at least if not from the date of 25.9.1982, till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.1.1992 in stead of pay in the scale of Rs.3000/- to Rs.4500/- only which is the revised sacle of junior Section Grade, besides concomitant emoluments.” has been correctly answered by the respondents in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that: “5. That regarding the statement made in paragraph no. 8 and 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was posted on the post of Kee Village Officer at Sakra, Muzaffarpur in his own pay scale as a temporary arrangement in the interest of the public work. Hence, the regular promotion on the same post does not arise. 6. That with regards to the statements made in paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition it is stated that the question of giving time bound promotion before 1.4.81 does not arise. According to the Finance Department’s Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981. The provision of 3 time bound promotion has been introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1981. The promotion of the petitioner in selection grade in Class II (basic cadre) according to the Finance Department’s Circular no. 920 dated 7.3.90. The petitioner came in Class II service senior Branch B.A.H.S. w.e.f. 14.6.78 by merger hence the first time bound promotion w.e.f. 14.6.88 has been given after completion of ten years service in the cadre. The said promotion has been given in accordance with provision made in Finance Department is circular no. 920 dated 7.3.90 and rule. As per the provisions made in the said circular the length of service of the previous cadre should not be considered for time bound promotion in the change cadre.” It thus becomes clear that the petitioner became over ambitious to claim salary and emoluments after more than five years of his retirement and therefore, the cause of action to the petitioner for grant of such higher pay scale with effect from 1.4.1982 to 1.4.1985 cannot be looked into in this wholly belated writ application filed on 27.1.1997. Additionally this Court 4 would find that whole claim of the petitioner is based on a presumption that even while working under current charge arrangement he will be entitled for the privilege of higher post and its pay scale even without being regularly promoted against such post. It is well known concept of service jurisprudence that the current charge arrangement on a higher post by remaining in one's own substantive post does not amount to promotion on the higher post inasmuch as it only enables a person to discharge the duty of higher post which is wholly a temporary and fortuitous arrangement and cannot be a substitute of regular promotion. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/