IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3928 of 2009 Lakshmi Prasad Sah Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 19/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks relief for grant of A.C.P. with effect from 9.8.1999 in lieu of the grant made from 15.7.2007. It is submitted that in pursuance of an advertisement published by the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board ((hereinafter referred to as „the Board) for appointment of graduate level posts of non-gazetted class-III employees under the State Government, the petitioner competed in the test and was recommended for the post of Investigator leading to direction by the Special Secretary, Rural Development Department for appointment. The petitioner however came to be appointed in the District Rural Development Agency and joined on 6.5.1986. He protested when subsequently he was relieved by the District Rural Development Agency and was appointed as a Block Supervisor on 29.6.1990 under the State Government. The submission on his behalf is that his 2 services have to be counted from the original appointment wrongly made in the District Rural Development Agency maintaining continuity as the appointment as a Block Supervisor was not a wholly fresh appointment after termination of the earlier selection to be operative prospectively. He was relieved by the District Rural Development Agency and that shall ensure continuity for the purposes of A.C.P. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is hardly helpful and only narrates undisputed facts with dates. It does not deal with the claim of the petitioner to be considered for grant of A.C.P. on basis of continuity as discussed above. It concludes at paragraph-7 that the petitioner had filed an application on 22.7.2005 which is required to be considered by the Director, Statistics and Evaluation Directorate, Patna. From 22.7.2005 till date has not been considered sufficient time by the respondents to dispose the representation. The issue of time bound promotion in similar circumstances came up for consideration by the Supreme Court in (1992) 2 SCC 119 (Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India):- “The point in issue is whether for the purpose of computing 16 years‟ service for getting a “time-bound promotion”, as per the relevant circular of the Government dated 17- 3 12-1983, the appellants are entitled to count the service rendered by them in the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India prior to their transfer to te Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The Tribunal has held that the said service with the former Department cannot be counted and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the time- bound promotion unless they complete 16 years in the transferee Department, namely, the P & T Department. 11. However, the position in regard to “time-bound” promotions is different. Where there are a large number of employees in any department and where the employees are not likely to get their promotion in the near future because of their comparatively low position in the seniority list, the Government has found it necessary that in order to remove frustration, the employees are to be given a higher grade in terms of emoluments – while retaining them in the same category. This is what is generally known as the time –bound promotion. Such a time-bound promotion does not affect the normal seniority of those higher up. 12. If that be the true purpose of a time-bound promotion which is meant to relieve frustration on account of stagnation, it cannot be said that the Government wanted to deprive the appellants who were brought into the P & T Department in public interest --- of the benefit of a higher grade. The frustration on account of stagnation is a common factor not only of those already in the P & T Department but also of those who are administratively transferred by the Government from the Rehabilitation Department to the P & T Department. The Government while imposing an eligibility condition of 16 years‟ service in the grade for being entitled to time-bound promotion, is not intending to benefit only one section of employees in the category and deny it to another section of employees in the same category. The common factor for all these employees is that they have remained in the same grade for 16 years without promotion. The said period is a term of eligibility for obtaining a financial benefit of a higher grade.” 4 If the matter is still engaging the attention of the respondents, the occasion for judicial review has not arisen as yet. It may or may not arise subsequently depending on the decision that the Director, Statistics and Evaluation Directorate, Patna may take. Direction is therefore issued to Respondent No.3, the Director, Statistics and Evaluation Directorate, Patna, to decide the representation of the petitioner within a maximum period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him by a reasoned and speaking order. The Court expects that if the Director, Statistics and Evaluation Directorate, Patna finds justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential orders shall be issued simultaneously. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)