IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15307 of 2001 Dr Sidheshwar Singh son of Late Balgovind Singh, resident of LIGH Flat No.7/220, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, PS Kankarbagh, Town and District Patna …… Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. The Additional Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna …… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr R.N.Mukhopadhya, Advocate For the State : Mr Tripurari Nath Ambastha, JC to SC 12 ----------- 5 30.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition to claim second time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1986 as given to his juniors such as Dr Pulin Krishna Sah, a retired Mobile Veterinary Doctor. On the basis of gradation list contained in Annexure-4 it has been shown that as member of Veterinary Service Class II petitioner was senior to Dr Pulin Krishna Sah but till his superannuation from the service on 31.1.1991 the petitioner was not given second time bound promotion although other persons who had superannuated from service, were given such promotions vide Annexure 5 dated 2 29.4.1995 and Annexure-6 dated 5.3.1997. When petitioner’s representations had no effect, he preferred this writ petition. On facts it has been shown that petitioner entered service on 2.4.1957 in diploma holder scale and as per Government policy decision, he was given degree holder scale in the same service on completing 10 years in 1967. Subsequently the diploma scale and the degree scale were merged with effect from 1.4.1981 leading to a common scale. It has been submitted on the basis of Annexure-2 that in order to avoid anomalies, the Finance Department on 16.7.1985 adopted a Resolution explaining the Resolution dated 30.12.1981 relating to grant of time bound promotions and it was clarified that if somebody had received benefit of higher scale in his service on account of merger/ upgradation then grant of such benefit will not stand in the way of time bound promotions on completion of required years of service as per earlier policy decision. The stand of the State is that on completing 10 years of service since the petitioner received degree pay scale on account of then existing policy decision, he got benefit of a higher pay scale not on account of merger or upgradation and, therefore, such benefit would stand in the way of his getting 3 second time bound promotion and hence, he has been granted only one time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981, the earliest possible day as per policy since he had completed 25 years of service. The further stand of the State on the basis of Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit is that persons junior to the petitioner had been wrongly granted the benefit of second time bound promotion and, therefore, by notification contained in Memo No.735 dated 1.2.2002 the benefit of second time bound promotion given to other persons including petitioner’s junior vide order contained in Annexure- 6, has been specifically cancelled. In spite of opportunity given a copy of the said notification has not been produced nor consequential orders have been produced to show that the benefits already given to others including junior to the petitioner have been actually withdrawn/ recovered. The copy of the order by which petitioner was given promotion in the year 1967 is not before this Court and the only basis to consider petitioner’s claim is Annexue-6 whereby petitioner’s junior was given second time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1986. On that basis it is found that petitioner is also entitled to grant of second time bound 4 promotion and hence, the matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months. However, in case the respondents find that second time bound promotion granted to the juniors and similarly situated have been actually cancelled by appropriate notification and order for recovery has been passed then in that case only they would be well within their rights to pass a reasoned order denying such benefits to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk