Letters Patent Appeal No.1010 OF 2001 ******* Against the judgment dated 7th August, 2001 passed in CWJC no. 4818 of 2001. ******* CHURAMANI SHARMA------------Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS---Respondents ******* For Appellant : Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh For the State : M/s Braj Kishore Pd. Sinha, GP 3, Harendra Prasad, JC. For Zila Parishad: Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. The whole confusion, in the instant case, is the failure on the part of the appellant in understanding the order dated 31st January, 1973, by which the appellant, then an Upper Division Clerk, was promoted to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant. The appellant felt that by the said order dated 2 31st January, 1973, he had been promoted to the post of Accountant, when, in fact, as would be evidenced from a reading of the said order dated 31st January, 1973, the appellant was promoted to the post of Head Clerk with an additional assignment of Accountant and, accordingly, he was made entitled to the scale of pay applicable to Head Clerks and as he was given an additional burden of the Accountant, was made entitled to 20% of his substantive pay as additional pay. A look at Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code, as explained by the Government, vide Memo. no. Par- 4054/60/12886-F dated 07th June, 1960, would amply make it clear that by the order dated 31st January, 1973, the appellant was only promoted to the post of Head Clerk and not to the post of Accountant, but, at the same time, was asked to discharge the duties of 3 Accountant and, accordingly, was authorized additional pay calculated at the rate of 20% of his substantive pay payable for the post of Head Clerk. 2. In as much as for a wrong understanding of the order dated 31st January, 1973, the appellant felt that he has become Accountant, he could not accept his becoming Assistant Accountant later on. He thought that grant of the post of Assistant Accountant to him was a demotion whereas, in fact, the post of Assistant Accountant is in between the post of Head Clerk and Accountant. 3. In 1989 the appellant retired. After his retirement many a times the appellant approached this court. It was contended by the appellant that he is entitled to a time bound promotion in terms of the policy of the Government. When the writ petition 4 containing such claim was being dealt with by this court, it was submitted on behalf of the employer, Zila Parishad, that while terminal dues of the appellant would be settled, he would be given the benefit of the first time bound promotion. Later on, the Zila Parishad realized that no time bound promotion is available to the appellant and, accordingly, it applied for review of the order and after having failed there, filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which too was dismissed. In consequence thereof, the right of the appellant to get a time bound promotion with effect from 01st April, 1981, stood crystallized. In the matter of settlement of terminal dues of the appellant disputes cropped up and, ultimately, the same were sorted out, except the scale of pay to which the appellant became entitle upon grant of such time bound promotion. 5 4. In terms of the policy of the Government a time bound promotion does not entail a promotion, but entails entitlement to be fixed in the next higher available scale. The appellant felt that since he was an Accountant, he would be in the scale next to the scale of Accountant. That having not been granted, further litigation ensued resulting in filing of the writ petition, which having been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. On 31st March, 1981, the appellant was in the scale of Rs.340-490. The said scale was replaced, on the basis of 4th Pay Revision Commission Report, to Rs.680-965. The next higher scale available after the scale of Rs.680-965 was the scale of Rs.730- 1080 and there is no dispute that the appellant was given the said scale of 6 Rs.730-1080. The contention of the appellant that he should be given a higher scale, therefore, does not hold good and, accordingly, for the reasons, as above, we dismiss the appeal without costs. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) Patna High court, The 10th September, 2008. AAhmad/(NAFR).