IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14523 of 2002 Ram Naresh Ram, Son of late Tikam Ram, Originally resident of Village Rabaichh, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna and at present resident of Nayatola, Sangat (Bakhtiyarpur), P.O. & P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Secondary-Primary & Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 6. The D.D.O. cum In-charge Head Master, Middle School, Bakhtiyarpur, P.S. bakhtiyarpur, District Patna. ----------- Respondents ----------- 3 02.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present but is not in a position to assist this Court in any manner in absence of any counter affidavit. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That the present writ petition is being filed on behalf of above named petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in quashing the office order vide memo no. 4105 dated 7.6.2002 contained in Annexure-4, issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Patna (for short the D.S.E.), respondent No.5, whereby and whereunder, the second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner in 1989 with 2 effect from 1.4.1985, has been cancelled and refixation of pay scale has been ordered after lapse of more than 13 years and that too, after more than 2 years of his superannuation for absolutely no fault on his part.” From reading of the writ application and in absence of any counter affidavit, all that this Court can hold is that if the service of the petitioner as a Peon was taken over by the State Government only with effect from 1.1.1971, he would not be entitled for any previous service rendered in private management for the purpose of computing 25 years of service for being granted second Time Bound Promotion. Accordingly, the earlier order, which was passed on 28.1.1989 granting second Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1985, was wholly unsustainable and was rightly recalled by the impugned order dated 7.6.2002. Nonetheless, the petitioner had continued in service up to 31.3.2000 and therefore, even if the petitioner may not have entitled for grant of second Time Bound Promotion in view of its being withdrawan 3 with effect from 1.1.1996, the date on which actually the petitioner had become eligible for such second Time Bound Promotion, but then he would still be entitled for his consideration of his case for grant of A.C.P. as he had continued in service till 31.3.2000. This Court, therefore, without putting any rider or impediment on the future consideration of the petitioner for A.C.P. would only direct the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of A.C.P. in accordance with Government Resolution and if by way of such reconsideration, if the petitioner is granted A.C.P. from a future date, its benefit for the purpose of arrear of salary and/or increase of pension may also be allowed to him. Subject to the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)