IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3317 of 2011 ====================================================== Suresh Pandey son of Late Indrasan Pandey, Resident of Rampur Khorum, P.O.-Magra, P.S.-Marhowra, District-Saran, presently residing at House of Yogendra Singh (Retd. Teacher) at Nehru Chowk, Chapra, Pin-841301. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Finance, government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director General of Police, Patna, Bihar. 6. The D.I.G., Saran Range at Chapra. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra. .... .... Respondents 2 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is the second visit of the petitioner before the High Court. Earlier no substantiative relief was granted to the petitioner as the matter was referred to the authorities to consider his claim for grant of A.C.P. benefit. According to him, in 20 years of service between 1974 -2003, when he superannuated he never got benefit of time bound promotions underA.C.P. Scheme brought into force in the year 2003. Petitioner claims that he has a right to claim such benefit under Assured career progression ( A.C.P. Scheme). Petitioner entered in service as a constable on 16.2.1968. In a couple of years i.e. on 24.3.1971 he got substantive promotion to the post of A.S.I. On 1.1.1974 he was promoted again on a substantive basis on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Such accelerated substantive promotions does raise eye-brows but this Court is not required to go into all that aspect as the issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to be compensated by time bound promotions under the A.C.P. Scheme. It is an accepted position that the time bound promotion scheme came to an end on 1.1.1996 and it was replaced by A.C.P. scheme The concept of time bound promotion was introduced for the first time on the recommendation made by the 4th Pay Revision Committee. Such provision was made for such employees who had absolutely no avenue of promotion because of the virtue of post that they held. In this circumstances, the Pay Revision Committee provided for two time bound promotions. One to be granted after ten years and the other after 25 years of service. It is clarified that time bound promotions did not mean substantive promotion but only a change in the pay scale. Obviously such provision was made for people down the ladder and for such posts where service began and ended on the same post after recruitment till the time of superannuation. This scheme lasted till 1.1.1996. Thereafter the next Pay Revision Committee's recommendation came into force. Time bound promotion was given a go by. However, on the basis of the Sixth Pay Revision Committee recommendation of the Central Government, the concept of A.C.P. Scheme was brought into effect and notified by the State Govt. in the year 2003 but made applicable from the year 1999. A reading of the Scheme of the A.C.P. would show that there is no drastic departure from the original concept of granting time bound promotions. Assured Career Progression Scheme also envisages benefit of promotion by grant of enhanced pay scale to persons who have been otherwise stagnating on the same posts. In the opinion of this Court the time frame fixed for granting Ist or 2nd A.C.P. Schemes are not compensatory in nature in the sense that a person is not granted promotion under A.C.P. merely because for many a years he was not granted substantive promotion. From the narration in the earlier part of the order, it is evident that the petitioner had got at least two substantive promotions because he rose from the post of a constable to a Sub- Inspector of Police. If that is the service history of the petitioner then obviously he did not fit into the category of such persons who entered service at a particular post and laid down office on the same post. It is in this background that the respondent authorities after considering the case have rejected his claim by the decision contained in Annexure-5 dated 2.12.2010. The respondents are not wrong by saying that the benefit of ACP will not accrue to the petitioner as the scheme does not cover his case. This writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. AMIT KUMAR/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)