IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10649 of 2010 1. Arun Kumar Srivastav S/O Late Mangal Prasad Srivastav, R/O H. No. 99/5l, Malviya Road, Gorge Town, Allahabad ( U. P.). Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chief Office, Siwan. 3. The Executive Engineer, Western Embankment Division, Kunauli, Birpur, Supaul. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ---------------------------------- 3. 14.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The controversy in the present writ application only relates to the relevant date from which the first time bound promotion has been granted to the petitioner. While the respondents have granted it from 1993 computing his period of service from 1983 the petitioner desires the same to be granted from 1983 computing his period of service from 1973. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 30.9.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Bench decision reported in 1996(2) PLJR 231 (Brajnandan Kumar Sinha vs The State of Bihar) at paragraph 7 to contend that the period spent in the work charge establishment has necessarily to be taken into consideration. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the respondents have granted lst time bound promotion to the petitioner from 19.5.1993 on completion of ten years service reckoned from 19.5.1983 when he was brought into regular establishment. The period of service in the work charge establishment has been taken in to consideration for the purpose of pension and paid to the petitioner. Since his period of service from 1973 till induction into regular establishment was as a 2 Work Sarkar in the work charge establishment, not in any cadre, the question of granting him any time bound promotion does not arise. On first impression the petitioner having superannuated on 30.9.2001 there can be no doubt that his claim for time bound promotion is highly belated. But, the respondents have themselves passed appropriate orders on 23.11.2010. A Bench of this Court in the case of Brajnandan Kumar Sinha (Supra) discussing the resolution dated 30.12.1981 framing the scheme for time bound promotion at paragraph 7 has in no uncertain terms ruled that “no distinction has been made vis-à-vis the employees who are working in the regular establishment and the employees who are working in the work charge establishment”. “Paragraph 12 of the resolution further makes it clear that the said revision of scale of pay was made applicable even with respect to the employees of the work charge establishment who were employees on full time basis against a post in the time scale of pay”. That concludes the discussion in so far as a coordinate Bench is concerned. The respondents have acknowledged in their supplementary counter affidavit that the period in the work charge establishment since 1973 has been reckoned as pensionable service. It is difficult to comprehend how same duration of his service is not being reckoned for time bound promotion. The reliance of the respondents on the circular dated 22.10.1984 appears misconceived in light of the subsequent circular dated 27.3.1987 considered in the case of Brajnandan Kumar Sinha (Supra). That brings to the fore the question of the nature of the relief to be granted. The Court has already opined that the petitioner has moved much belatedly for time bound promotion, a view which finds 3 support from the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in (2010) 8 SCC 701. But the respondents have suo motu issued orders themselves for grant of time bound promotion to the petitioner recently on 23.11.2010 and in respect of which the Court has held the date for grant to be erroneous. Holding that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for lst time bound promotion reckoning his service from 1973 in the work charge establishment, the Court holds that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits of the time bound promotion from 1973 till 1983. However, notional pay scale that follows the same has to be reckoned appropriately for refixation of pensionary benefits. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that this Court may not restrict the relief in the manner done as the respondents have suo motu issued orders for time bound promotion. While the right of the citizen is important the interest of the State also cannot be ignored by the Court. The duty of the Court is to direct a competing balance between the two by moulding the relief as indicated above. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated.. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)