CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1571 OF 1995 *** ( In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ) CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE UMA SHANKER PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHAGWANDAS, POLICE STATION DARBHANGA TOWN AND DISTRICT DARBHANGA ………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 4. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DARBHANGA ………………………………………………………….………………..RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. RATAN PRASAD SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. S. C. VI ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in the Collectorate at Darbhanga on 01.06.1960. He retired on 31.10.1993. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been granted the 1st Time Bound Promotion with effect from 09.04.1981 in stead of 14.08.1991. The reason for depriving the petitioner from the benefit of 1st 2 Time Bound Promotion is two-fold. It has been contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner had not passed the Accounts examinations and, therefore, he was not entitled for consideration for the Time Bound promotion. The second reason for depriving the petitioner is that certain allegations and charges were pending against him, which were cleared by the order of the Collector, Darbhanga vide memo no. 326 dated 18th February, 1994 and thus, he could not get his 1st Time Bound Promotion during his tenure in service. The scheme for Time Bound Promotion as contained in Annexure-3 envisages that `a person who has not been granted promotion or that there are no avenues of promotion available to him would be granted Time Bound Promotion’. Clause 11 of the scheme envisages that `an employee who is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by ten years of service, notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be permitted to the junior selection grade at the end of the tenth year’. Relying on the aforesaid scheme for grant of Time Bound Promotion, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds for depriving the 3 petitioner from the benefit of the Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 and granting him promotion with effect from 14.08.1991 is beyond the scheme and against the rules of the State Government. The facts reveal that the Collector had allowed the prayer of the petitioner and exempted him from appearing in the accounts examination on 30.03.1988 as the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 and, thereafter, he was considered for grant of the junior selection grade. It is erroneous to presume that the petitioner was required to pass the accounts examination for grant of Time Bound Promotion. The incumbent claiming promotion against Clause 10 of the scheme for grant of regular promotion is required to clear the efficiency bar and the accounts examination, but it is not essential for a person who is to be granted Time Bound Promotion to clear the accounts examination. As such, the plea of the State Government, that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of promotion until he had been granted the exemption is a incorrect stand and cannot be accepted by this Court in view of the fact that there is no such condition for grant of Time Bound Promotion. The plea of the State Government that the petitioner was facing certain charges and was only 4 cleared of the charges on 18.02.1994 is not a good ground to debar him as once a person has cleared all the charges, his promotion and any dues which are to be paid to the person concerned would date back from the date of his entitlement. This Court thus finds that both the grounds raised on behalf of the State Government with respect to grant of Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner are non-est. The petitioner would be entitled for grant of 1st Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 i.e. the date on which the scheme for Time Bound Promotion was introduced in the State of Bihar and would be entitled for grant of 2nd Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1984 as he has completed 25 years of service on 01.04.1984. The Collector, Darbhanga and the Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna should take steps to ensure that the calculations are made to pay the difference due to the petitioner on account of grant of 1st Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 in stead of 14.08.1991 and also pass an order granting 2nd Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1984 till the date of his retirement which is 31.10.1993. The retiral dues should also be re- 5 calculated on the basis of the promotion granted to the petitioner. The entire exercise i.e. calculation of the difference amount and the payment, should be made within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and retiral dues should be recalculated and payment should be made within a period of three months thereafter. In the result, this application is allowed for the aforesaid reasons. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED 04th May, 2010 N.A.F.R./Anand