IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6863 of 2006 CHHAVI NATH DAS SON OF SRI SAHABIR DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HRIDAYGANJ, P.S. SAHAYAK, DISTRICT KATIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER- CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, KATIHAR. 6. THE DIRECTOR, A/C & ADMINISTRATION, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, KATIHAR. ----------- 2 15/11/2010 Claim for promotion in substantive capacity was made by the petitioner by his application addressed to the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Katihar. Said application is annexure-7 to the writ application. But till date petitioner was not informed as to what happened to his such representation. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which statements have been given with regard to non grant of time bond promotion to the petitioner on account of his non passing of the departmental examination prior to 4.11.1991. Hindi - 2 - noting and drafting examination was cleared by him on 6.2.1981 but the time bound promotion came to accrue to the petitioner from 4.11.1991 which is not disputed but petitioner wants shifting of this date to 5.4.1988 i.e. on completion of ten years of service. The Court is not convinced with the petitioner’s case for shifting the date of his time bound promotion since petitioner himself admits that he had passed the Accounts examination in the year 1991 and even for grant of time bound promotion petitioner must fulfill other requirements including passing of departmental examination. This aspect is, therefore, allowed to rest. So far as the substantive promotions are concerned, let the Deputy Development Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Katihar (respondent no. 5) pass an order with regard to the claim of the petitioner and communicate the outcome thereof to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. If the benefit accrues to the petitioner, the fall out would be there. However, if the decision goes against him, petitioner has - 3 - remedy under the law. The Court has intentionally refrained itself from expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter as the counter affidavit is sketchy on this issue with regard to substantive promotion. This writ application is disposed of with the observation, as aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)