IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6594 of 2006 MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BABULAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAHUABIGHA, P.S.-OBRA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. ………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD. 4. THE PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, AURANGABAD. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AURANGABAD. …..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Arun Kumar Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocates. For the State : Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P. -10 4 20.12.2010 The petitioner had filed this writ petition principally making two grievances. Firstly, his grievance was that his pay revision was not being done regularly and his second grievance was that he has wrongly not been granted the first and second time bound promotions. A counter affidavit and rejoinder have been filed and with the consent of parties the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. So far as the first grievance is concerned, in the counter affidavit copy of the service book of the petitioner has been annexed which clearly shows that petitioner’s pay has been revised from time-to-time and has been given due increments. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes to this and does not press the first issue. So far as the second grievance is concerned with regard to time bound promotion the counter affidavit admits that on two occasions petitioner’s case was sent for requisite consideration but as service book was not sent it could not be done. The third time it was put up, time bound promotion was denied on the ground that petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for two months in the year 1986. To this petitioner has filed a rejoinder. Petitioner has brought on record that in those two months petitioner was in regular service and was duly paid he was not absent much less unauthorizedly absent. He states that this lame excuse has been put forward by the State to cover their inaction. No further grounds for denial of time bound promotion has been raised by the State. Thus, from the state’s own pleading in the counter affidavit it is found that the petitioner was entitled to time bound promotion and has not been given the same. In this connection, I may like to notice one aspect. Time bound promotion is conditioned upon the employee not having received any other promotion and is otherwise fit for promotion. There is no discretion in the matter. Thus, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to time bound promotion he has to be given the same. The time bound promotion is not dependent upon the discretion of the authorities but is a matter of right of an employee. Thus, I find that denial of time bound promotion to the petitioner has been wrong and cannot be sustained. It may also be notice that petitioner has retired on 13.6.2009. It is high time the authorities granted the petitioner first time bound promotion and the second time bound promotion and made proper calculations of enhanced remuneration accordingly. The respondents are thus directed to take up the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, who would further ensure that due effect is given to the promotion so granted on the salary and the present pension of the petitioner and payments are made within six months for which the D.M. shall be personally responsible. With these observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of. PN ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. )