CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7417 OF 2000 ------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ------- Naresh Pandey Son Of Late Chander Mohan Pandey, Resident of Boring Road (West) Gandhi Nagar, P.S. S.K. Puri, District Patna ….Petitioner Versus 1.The Bihar State Khadi Gramodyog Board, Through Its Chairman, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan (East) Patna 2.The Chairman, Bihar State Khadi Gramodyog Board, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan (East) Patna 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Khadi Gramodyog Board, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan (East) Patna 4. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Department Of Industries, New Secretariat, Patna 5.The Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Department Of Industries, New Secretariat, Patna 6.The Deputy Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Department Of Industries, New Secretariat, Patna ………….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Ganpati Trivedi, Dev Kumar Pandey For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 16 P r e s e n t THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: i) He should be given the second time-bound promotion with money benefits w.e.f. 8.5.1988, rather than 23.3.1990. ii) Part of the gratuity amount withheld by the Board. 2. The two sets of respondents have placed on record their separate counter affidavits. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had admittedly joined the services of respondent Board on 9.5.1963, as S.K.Katriar,J 2 Statistical Officer. He was given the benefit of the first time-bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981. On completion of 25 years of service, he was given the benefit of second time-bound promotion w.e.f. 9.5.1988, which was advanced to 23.3.1990. We have not been able to decipher from the materials on record as to the justification to advance the date of grant of benefit of second time-bound promotion. It is evident from the policy decision of the State Government regarding grant of time-bound promotions that the same is admissible to an employee after he has put in service for 25 years, provided he has not got the second promotion in between, or has not incurred any disqualification. The respondents have not brought on record any material in justification of having shifted the date of second time-bound promotion to 23.3.1990. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of second time- bound promotion with consequential benefits w.e.f. 9.5.1988. Let the differential amount of salary and the post-retirement benefits be revised accordingly. 4. In so far as the second grievance is concerned, the petitioner claims to be entitled to a total sum of Rs.61,288/- by way of gratuity out of which Rs.38,712/- was released. It is evident from a perusal of the order dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure-11), issued by the Board, that the petitioner is entitled to the said sum of Rs.61,288/-. Respondent nos.4 to 6 in their counter affidavit have stated that the balance sum of Rs.61,288 minus Rs.38,712=Rs.22,576/- had already been disbursed to the Board for payment to the petitioner. It thus appears to us that the Board has erred in releasing a sum of Rs.38,712/- only to the petitioner so far. Let the balance amount be released forthwith. 3 5. The writ petition is allowed. It appears to us from the materials on record that the petitioner has been required to approach this court repeatedly. Let the aforesaid dues be paid along with interest @ 11% per annum from the date the amounts become due to the petitioner till the date of payment. (S.K. Katriar,J) Samarendra Pratap Singh,J (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J) Patna High Court Dated November 29, 2010 KHAN/AFR