IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.582 of 2008 ARJUN SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, Advocate -------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------- Dated, the 4th August, 2008. The appeal suffers from delay of 27 days and for its condonation an application (I.A. No.4568 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, we are of the considered view that appeal is devoid of any substance and does not deserve to be admitted. 2. The appellant in his writ petition prayed for a direction to the respondents to give him time bound promotion with effect from 17.101987. The petitioner also claimed for consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Junior Engineer in the month of February, 1964 in Koshi Project, Birpur and thereafter he was transferred to Bhartiya Sahyog Nigam, Chatra, Nepal, where he worked as Junior Engineer for the period 1969 to 1976. That the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer by office order dated 17th October, 1977 is not in dispute. As an Assistant Engineer he has been transferred at a few places. His grievance is that for almost 20 years he continued as Assistant Engineer, although on completion of ten years of service, as per Government circular dated - 2 - 26th December, 1985, he was entitled to time bound promotion. 3. The respondents filed the counter affidavit and took a plea that the petitioner has already earned promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer on 17th October, 1977. He was not entitled to time bound promotion as claimed. 4. The Single Judge held that the petitioner got substantive promotion to the next higher rank and, therefore, time bound promotion was not available to him and, consequently, dismissed the writ petition. 5. As noticed above the factum of substantive promotion having been given to the petitioner on 17th October, 1977 from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer is not in dispute. If that be so, the petitioner’s claim for entitlement of time bound promotion is misconceived and misplaced. An employee having got substantive promotion to the next higher rank cannot claim time bound promotion. 6. Dismissal of writ petition by the Single Judge, therefore, now cannot be faulted. L.P.A. is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. 7. This disposed of I.A. No.4568 of 2008. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-