IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1325 of 2009 MUKTA MOHAN DAS S/O LATE TRILOKI NATH DAS VILL-THANA COLONY, P.S-BOUNSI, DISTT- BANKA. ....PETITIONER-APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH FINANCE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT , BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE INCHARGE OFFICER, FINANCE (PERSONAL CLAIM FIXATION SECTION), DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA, 5. THE UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA, 6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA, 7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TUBE-WELL DIVISION, PATNA, 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE-WELL DIVISION, MUNGER. … RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Jai Shankar Prasad, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C.-21 Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.21. -------- 02. 25.03.2010 Being dissatisfied with the order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Civil Review No.33 of 2007 of the learned Judge the present intra court present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant writ petitioner whose writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 715 of 2004 assailing the notification of the State Government dated 10.10.2003 - 2 - withdrawing his time bound promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer on the ground of having already earned two promotions as Sub-Overseer and Overseer and hence disentitled for any further time bound promotion, had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 15.1.2007. Mr. Jai Shankar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he may be permitted to address on the merits of the case which was dealt with by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.715 of 2004. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel-21 for the State has no objection. In view of the aforesaid, we have adverted to both the orders. The singular question that arises for consideration is as to whether the time bound promotion benefit that was extended to the appellant in the year 1997 giving him benefit with effect from the year 1987 could have been withdrawn? On a perusal of the order passed in the writ petition as well as the order in the review, it is quite clear that the appellant was given the benefit of two - 3 - promotions, namely, the promotion to the post of Overseer and second to the post of Assistant Engineer. Thus, he could not have been extended the benefit of time bound promotion scheme in terms of the Resolution of Finance Department dated 30.12.1981 clearly providing that such time bound promotion scheme of the Government was aimed to remove stagnation in the career of a government servant and could be admissible only when he had not earned any promotion in his service span. As a matter of fact the order dated 14.7.1997 granting time bound promotion to the Appellant writ petitioner w.e.f. 11.10.1987 much after his retirement from service on 31.5.1996 was itself illegal inasmuch as he had not even passed the prescribed departmental examination and was given exemption only on 1.3.1988. On the aforesaid admitted facts the appellant writ petitioner's time bound promotion w.e.f. 17.10.1987 and that too after his retirement could not have been continued and its cancellation by the competent authority by this impugned order dated 10.10.2003 cannot be faulted either on facts or in law. - 4 - We are however impressed with one of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner that for such lapses/laches on the part of the competent authority granting time bound promotion to the appellant writ petitioner, he being a retired person and surviving only on monthly pension should not be made to suffer financially by way of recovery of any amount already paid to him specially when he did not make any misrepresentation and infact was given such time bound promotion on the own volition of the authorities of the State Government. However, on a query being made from Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel-21 whether there would be any recovery of the amount that has been paid to the appellant on account of time bound promotion, he had frankly conceded that there would be no such recovery. He has however explained that the only thing that would affect the appellant is the re-fixation of his pension as a consequence of his revised salary that he ought to have drawn without getting the benefit of time bound promotion. - 5 - In view of the aforesaid concession, we perceive no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)