IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8162 of 2003 RASH BIHARI SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Amber Nath Banerji, Adv. For the State:- Mr. A. Amanullah, SC-17 ----------- 4. 1.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to have been granted first time bound promotion on 3.7.1983. He is aggrieved by denial of second time bound promotion and the appropriate scale even though it is alleged to have been granted to his juniors. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner cannot be granted the second time bound promotion till such time that he does not clear the Departmental Accounts Examination. Strong reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2000(3) BBCJ 384. Learned counsel for the State further sought to persuade this Court to go into the correctness of the first time bound promotion granted to the petitioner but very fairly acknowledged that it has not been cancelled by the State and no steps have been taken for its annulment in accordance with law. There is no occasion for this Court therefore to go into that aspect. Counsel for the petitioner has next relied upon a 2 departmental notification dated 12.8.1992 and 21.11.2000 to contend that an agreement was arrived at between the State Government and the non- gazetted employees association under which all promotions granted prior to 1.9.1983 were not controlled by passing of the departmental examination and those granted such promotion prior to that date were entitled to subsequent promotions also. This has been considered by a Bench of this Court in 2005(1) PLJR 267, appropriately in light of the discussion of the Full Bench also when it was held that the notification dated 12.8.1992 and 21.11.2000 were not brought to the attention of the Full Bench and the effect thereof has then been considered. It has been held in Paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 of the judgment as follows:- “6. The respondents have said that the said circular was clarified by later circular dated 21.11.2000 (24.12.2000). I have gone through the said circular also. The said circular refers to the contents of the circular no. 4178 dated 12.8.1992 and thereafter observes that to resolve the problem and in accordance with the direction issued by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4167 of 1998 a clarificatory order was being issued. The clarification is that the persons who were entitled to first time-bound promotion prior to 1.9.1983 and even if their orders of first time- bound promotion had been issued on a later date without passing the departmental examination, would be entitled to further promotional avenues provided they fulfil the other conditions. This circular in fact helps and assists the cause of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State repeatedly submitted that the first time- bound promotion if was due prior to 1.9.1983 and if the same had been given to an 3 incumbent then such incumbent would not be entitled to second time-bound promotion unless he passes the accounts examination because passing of the accounts examination is one of the conditions precedent for promotion. The argument runs contrary to the circular dated 21.11.2000 (annexure-L). The circular nowhere says that before getting the benefits of the second- time bound promotion the incumbent has to pass the accounts examination. In fact the circular says that a person who was entitled to first time-bound promotion prior to 1.9.1983 and an order of promotion has been passed in his favour even on a subsequent date then such a person would be entitled to further promotion without passing the departmental examination. 9. The circular dated 12.8.1992 is clarified by a clarificatory letter contained in memo no. 8601 dated 21.11.2000, I must observe that the petitioner who had received the benefit of the first time-bound promotion without passing the accounts examination would be entitled to the benefits of the second time-bound promotion in the light of those circulars of the State Government. The respondents are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in fixing his salary and pay by not taking into consideration the effect of the second time- bound promotion.” This Court, therefore, holds that in view of the first time bound promotion granted to the petitioner on 3.7.1983, he is entitled to be considered for his subsequent second time bound promotion accordingly. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the Bench decision in 2005(1) PLJR 267, let the claim of the petitioner for second time bound promotion now be considered in accordance with law, within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 4 I.A. No. 473 of 2007 has been filed raising claim for grant of ACP benefits. Rather than call upon the respondents to file a fresh counter affidavit, the I.A. application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to submit an appropriate representation before the authorities who are expected to decide his representation in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)