IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12973 of 1996 JAYATI SINHA WIDOW OF LATE SAVITA RANJAN SINHA RESIDING AT MOHAALLA BORING ROAD,SINDHU BILAS PO- PATLIPUTRA, PS- SRI KRISHNA NAGAR,DISTT- PATNA-----------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECY. CUM-AGRICULGURE PRODUCUTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE,BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECY., GOVT. OF BIHAR,DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 6. THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPTT. OF FINANCE, PATNA 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,BIHAR, PATNA-------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Natha, Advocate For the State.: Mr. Anant Kumar AC to SCXI. -------- 3 25.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is the wife of erstwhile employee who is claiming that the husband of the petitioner be given second time bound promotion. The husband of the petitioner retired on 31.7.1985while serving the Agriculture department and according to the present petitioner her husband was given the benefit of junior selection grade but the super time scale or second time bound promotion was denied to him. The respondents in their counter affidavit have placed the service history of the petitioner, the benefit of promotion which he came to acquire during the service period as well as the circumstances under which the benefit of junior selection grade now under the scheme of time bound promotion was granted to him. Their further stand is that the husband of the - 2 - petitioner became eligible for super time scale on 1.4.1986 in terms of the fixed Kalawadhi of three years but unfortunately for him he did not have the requisite service tenure and retired on 31.7.1985. The admitted fact is that the petitioner’s husband did not complete the minimum kalawadhi as he did not have the requisite period of service to his credit before retirement and the respondent despite considering the service record of the petitioner did not make recommendation for grant of such benefit. The explanation offered and the reasons given are cogent and valid reason. Juniority or seniority is not the only touchstone for granting the said benefit. In the given facts which has been stated in the present writ application and for the reasons indicated above petitioner has failed to make out a case. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed but without costs. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)