IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.10852 OF 2007 LAL NARAYAN SHARMA, S/O LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE CHESI, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 25.10.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner a retired teacher of Primary School, Abharanchak, Anchal- Naubatpur-2, District-Patna, who was appointed in the year 1966 has filed this writ application for grant of time bound promotion which according to him became due in the year 1990, on completion of 24 years of his service. It has been explained in the writ application that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court for the same relief in C.W.J.C NO. 14126 of 2004 and that the writ application was held to be premature in view of the assurance given by learned counsel for the State that the process of considering the case of the petitioner and others for grant of such 2 time bound promotion was under active consideration and the matter was likely to be finalized within a period of two months. Recording the aforementioned assurance of the counsel for the State, this Court had held this writ application to be premature but of course had given liberty to the petitioner to move before this Court, if any adverse order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application, filed after three years of dismissal of his first writ application is that the respondents have not even considered his case as yet and have passed no order either allowing or rejecting the claim of second time bound promotion of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit which has been filed today by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, the successor in office of District Superintendent of Education, Patna, has taken a plea that he does not know anything about this case and he is a new entrant to the office and that he would require some 3 more time to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion in super time scale inasmuch as, such promotion has to be given on the basis of seniority of the teachers and since the issue of seniority is still under consideration, the claim of the petitioner can be decided only after finalization of the seniority. The whole position in the opinion of this Court, is absolutely pathetic, if not disturbing inasmuch as more than five years back, on 18.04.2006, counsel for the State had given an assurance to this Court that the case of the petitioner will be considered within a period of two weeks but the respondents have done nothing in the last five years. Now a new plea is being taken as with regard to seniority of the petitioner and others being not decided by the respondents, to be the reason for not considering the time bound promotion of the petitioner. There is also a lot of confusion in the minds of the Authorities as with regard to the claim of the petitioner, whether it is a time bound promotion upon completion of 24 years of 4 service of the petitioner or grant of super time scale as has now been sought to be expressed in the counter affidavit. All said and done, it does not augur well for efficient administration to keep the grievance of a person either in service or after his retirement pending for years together and that too on no justifiable reason. Keeping all these aspects in mind, this Court would direct the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna to ensure that the case of the petitioner for grant of second time bound promotion which is the subject matter of this writ application must be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since, the said decision will have to be taken by the District Education Establishment Committee, it shall be the duty of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna to place the case of the petitioner before the Committee immediately after receipt of the 5 representation filed by the petitioner and also make the Chairman and members of the committee aware of the direction given by this Court and the time limit fixed for carrying out such exercise. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)