IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4152 of 2011 Kailash Ram & Anr Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2 21.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. How bona fide is the order contained in annexure-3, which is under challenge in the present writ application, is reflected from the fact that in the original file which has been procured by the State counsel there is nothing to indicate that the change of designation of the petitioners from the post of Washing Boy to that of Bearer is either a case of promotion or a case of substantive appointment subsequently. Learned counsel for the State has gone through the records and is not in a position to certify in so many words that the change of nomenclature or the nature of the work assigned to the petitioners in any manner fell in either of the two categories of promotion or substantive appointment. Several sheets of papers have been wasted before passing of the order contained in annexure-3, by virtue of which the date of grant of time bound promotion is sought to be shifted or re- fixed after more than 23 years on the ground that petitioners re- designation as bearer was a promotion. Obviously it is a mindless exercise which has been carried out by the State authority on the issue without really applying themselves to the ground reality. Admitted position is that initially the engagement of the petitioners on 5.7.1974 were said to be on a particular pay scale - 2 - and the work assigned to them was a washing boy. In the year 1977 they were re-designated to be Bearers. The change in designation had not changed their perk or benefit. Merely re-allocation of work or change of nomenclature in any manner can not be dubbed to be substantive appointment or promotion to the post of Bearer. If that be so then there was no occasion to re-work the date from which the petitioners would be entitled to time bound promotion. Petitioners’ entry into service would be treated from 5.7.1974. It makes no difference whether they are called washing boy or bearer. The stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit to that extent seems to be misleading and t the whole exercise in this regard has been done only to harass the petitioners without going into the issue in detail. Annexure-3 dated 25.2.2006 stands quashed. This writ application is allowed and direction is given upon the respondents to settle all the claim of the petitioners on the basis of initial grant of time bound promotion from the date of their initial entry into service i.e. 5.7.1974. The Court also records its displeasure and cautions the State authorities that they should not harass people on such kind of frivolous issue. If any matter of such kind arises in future the Court may have an occasion to award suitable cost against such persons. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)