IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.863 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 14630/2001) 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director Cum Additional Secretary, Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 4. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Munger. 5. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 6. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Munger. 7. The Treasury Officer, Munger. 8. The Treasury Officer, Lakhisarai. 9. The Deputy Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury Office, Lakhisarai. 10. The Accountant General (A & E) Bihar And Jharkhand, Patna. 11. The Sub Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai. … Appellants. Versus Ruchi Kumari @ Ruchi Sinha @ Nutan Sinha, D/O Late Umeshwar Prasad Sinha, R/O Kankar Ghat,Lallu Pokhar, P.S.-Kasim Nagar, District-Munger. …… Respondent. For the appellants : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, A.A.G.2 Mr. Abhinay Raj, AC to AAG.2 For the Respondent : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma No.1, Advs. ---------------------------------- 06. 05.12.2011 Heard the parties. The State of Bihar and the concerned officials have preferred this appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent of this Court against the judgment and order dated 3rd August 2007 whereby the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 14630 of 2011 was allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in Para-3 of the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has rightly noticed the legal position as stated in the counter affidavit that father of the writ petitioner did not get any promotion due to the reason of not passing the departmental Accounts Examination which was mandated by Rules 156 and 157 of the Board Miscellaneous Rules. 2 The further submission is that in Para-4 of the order under appeal, the writ Court has erred in holding that since the State did not take such objection when the father of the writ-petitioner, the employee concerned was still in service, therefore, no such ground can be taken by the State to resist the claim for grant of 1st time bond promotion to an employee who had not passed the requisite examination. We have no hesitation in holding that the writ Court erred in observing that the State had to raise such an objection on the basis of provisions requiring passing of departmental examination for the purpose of promotion, during the service period of the employee. To the contrary, it was for the concerned employee to claim promotion if it was wrongly denied. It is not in dispute that the father of the writ petitioner superannuated on 31st October 1985 and died on 31st October 1993. A representation claiming time bond promotion was filed by the writ-petitioner, daughter of the deceased employee on 9th June 2000 followed by the writ petition in the year 2001. Clearly the employee had accepted the decision of the authorities not to grant him time bond promotion, as he had not cleared the departmental Accounts Examination till his superannuation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we would have normally allowed the appeal dismissing the writ petition and set aside the order under appeal. However, it has come out in the Memo of appeal that on account of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh, 2000(4) PLJR 262 the promotions becoming due between the period 1st May 1980 and 23rd March 1982 could not have been denied on the ground of non-clearance of the final 3 Examination in Accounts. The Full Bench gave reasons pointing out that clerks of the Mufassil Offices were brought under the said provision through an amendment dated 29th March 1982 and such administrative instruction could not have been given any retrospective effect. From the Memo of appeal it is further noticed that on account of such Full Bench decision, the authorities have ultimately granted first time bond promotion to the deceased employee with effect from 1st April, 1981. Thereafter in order to get the 2nd time bond promotion to a higher grade or scale, a time period of 5 years was required to be completed as per the policy of the Government clarified trough Annexure-3 to the Memo of appeal. Admittedly the concerned employee superannuated before completing the required period of five years for becoming eligible for 2nd time bond promotion. In view of the aforesaid discussion the order under appeal is modified to the extent that the father of the writ-petitioner, the deceased employee is held to be entitled only to the 1st time bond promotion which has already been granted to him. Its benefits should be made available to the persons entitled without any delay and, in any case, within three months, if such benefit has not been given as yet. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)