IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.658 of 2010 UMESH OJHA, son of Late Phuldeo Ojha, resident of village Khabra, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur through the Municipal Commissioner 4. The Municipal Commissioner, the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur 5. The Municipal Executive Officer, The Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur … Respondents-respondents. ----------- 2. 8.4.2010 I.A.No. 3429/2010 Having heard counsel for the parties as also after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application, the delay of 21 days in filing of this appeal is condoned. I.A.No. 3429/2010 is, accordingly, allowed. L.P.A.No. 658/2010 The appellant- writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 20/2010, whereby and whereunder his prayer for grant of two time bound promotion and/or first and second Assured Career Progression (in short „ACP‟) promotion with effect from 9.8.1999 has been held to 2 have been redressed by grant of his promotion in Junior Selection Grade. Counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner in this context has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have not dismissed the writ application only by recording that his grievance with regard to promotion had stood redressed on account of promotion given to him in Junior Selection Grade. He has, accordingly, impressed upon us that the respondent should be directed to reconsider the case of promotion for both time bound at the end of 10 and 25 years of service of the appellant- writ petitioner as also his two ACP promotion with effect from 9.8.1999 in terms of the Government decision. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has explained that the appellant- writ petitioner was not an employee of the State Government and to him the benefit of time bound promotion or ACP could have been only given if his employer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as „the Corporation‟) had adopted such scheme of promotion under Time Bound Scheme or ACP Scheme. He has also invited attention of this Court towards the earlier order in a writ 3 petition filed by the appellant- writ petitioner claiming the aforesaid promotion wherein this Court had refused to give any positive direction and had left the matter at the discretion of the Corporation. In the opinion of this Court the appellant- writ petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. The Government Resolution dated 30.12.1981 introducing concept of two time bound promotion on expiry of 10 and 25 years of service was available to only a Government servant. The employees of the Municipal Corporation, who are governed by the separate statutory service rules, could be extended such promotional benefit under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme or ACP Scheme if the same was adopted by the Corporation. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the Corporation had adopted those promotional schemes of the State Government and had implemented it for its employees. This aspect of the matter in fact was gone into by this Court in his earlier writ application, C.W.J.C.No. 15225/2004, which was disposed of on 5.10.2007, wherein he had sought a direction to the Corporation to promote him to the post of Upper 4 Division Clerk. At that point of time when the petitioner in the year 2004 had never claimed of his promotion on two time bound and two ACPs. in absence of its being enforceable and applicable to the employees of the Corporation, and had confined his grievance with regar5d to continuing on the same post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) for a period over 33 years by relying on an observation made by this Court with regard to providing two promotional opportunities to the employees of the Corporation in an order dated 8.8.1997 in C.W.J.C.No. 8114/1988 wherein this Court had passed the following order: “ Petitioner‟s case is that he cannot be expected to shoulder the same responsibility for the last 33 years on the same post. He must have either some avenue of promotion or some benefit of higher pay scale. He indicates that earlier on the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Committee, Government had taken steps to make some provision for granting time bound promotion to employees who never had any avenue of promotion. Though subsequently the 5th and 6th Pay Revision Committee did away with provision since they thought they have created some 5 promotional avenues for most of the employees. That may have been so for State Govt. employees. But it is a sad reflection that employees under the Corporation though being a public body has made the petitioner work for 33 years without any promotional avenue or higher pay scale on the post. Keeping the public issue and in the interest of administration a Bench of this Court had given a direction to the State Government but then a direction to the State is equally applicable to Corporation also. In my opinion, therefore, let the respondent Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation with due consultation of the State Gopvt., if it is required under law make some provisions for granting benefit of promotion to petitioner if it is available under the rules, if not at least let steps for grant of time bound promotion for the period the same was applicable in terms of 4th Pay Revision Committee be made available to the petitioner.” From the aforementioned order, it is clear that this Court had given no conclusive finding as with regard to admissibility of two time bound promotions to the employees of the Corporation and had left the matter 6 for its being decided by the authorities of the Corporation. It appears that subsequently the authorities of the Corporation by an order dated 20.8.2008 had given promotion to the appellant- writ petitioner on a post of Junior Selection Grade Assistant and accordingly, his pay also was fixed on the promotional post by an order dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure 9 to the writ application). As noted above, the Corporation had never taken a decision to implement the time bound promotion scheme of the State Government which was in vogue from 1981 to 1996 or ACP Scheme which came into force in the year 1999. In absence of a promotional channel/ scheme this Court could not have directed the Corporation to give such promotion to the appellant- writ petitioner. It appears to us that the learned Single Judge had considered all these aspects for recording his satisfaction that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to promotion stood ventilated on account of his promotion on the post of Junior Selection Grade Assistant. We find no infirmity in such approach of the learned Single Judge, especially when nothing has been 7 brought on record to show that the Corporation has ever introduced/ implemented the time bound promotion scheme or ACP promotion Scheme of the State Government. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/