IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1745 of 2008 PRIYA RANJAN SHARMA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 22/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation ((hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’ ). The poor financial condition of the corporation prompted the State Government to come out with a scheme for absorption inter alia of employees of the corporation. The petitioner, thus, came to be appointed by way of absorption in the State Government by order dated 24.6.1996. The controversy in this case relates to his claim for computing this period of service rendered by him in the corporation also for grant of second time bound promotion and for the purposes of computing pensionable service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement reported in (1998) 9 S.C.C. 425 (A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS 2 Versus R. PARTHASARATHI AND OTHERS) and (1999) 2 S.C.C. 119 (DWIJEN CHANDRA SARKAR AND ANOTHER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS) to submit that not only his period in service in corporation is required to be reckoned for time bound promotion, but also for purposes of reckoning his service as pensionable. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (1998) 4 S.C.C. 358 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus K. SAVITRI AND OTHERS) to urge that the petitioner is not entitled to the same. It is not in controversy that there has been no break in service of the petitioner by resignation from the corporation before he came to be appointed in the State Government. On the contrary, it was under a scheme for absorption of employees of the corporation, given its poor economic condition, that the petitioner was duly relieved from the corporation when he joined the State Government. The order of appointment also talks of appointment by way of absorption and not appointment simpliciter. 3 In the case of R. Parthasarathi (supra) relied upon on behalf of the petitioner the respondent was an employee in the State Government service who came to be absorbed permanently in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. The Apex Court held at paragraph-3 of the judgement that the period of service spent in the State Government prior to absorption in the State Electricity Board was to be taken into consideration while considering his eligibility for having come into the promotion zone. In the case of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar (supra) relied on by the petitioner, the question was as to whether the service spent in one department was to be computed upon transfer to another department for the purpose of time bound promotion. Dealing with the issue of time bound promotion in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13, the Apex Court held that the aim and purpose of time bound promotion was to prevent frustration and stagnation. This does not get affected in any manner by the fact whether he was in one department or another as the issue of frustration 4 and stagnation permeates throughout and therefore it was to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the benefit thereunder notwithstanding such subsequent absorption as it does not affect normal seniority of those already posted in the department. The case of K. Savitra (supra) relied upon by respondents has no relevance as it deals with the issue of seniority of persons absorbed in the new department, a question which has already been considered in the case of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar (supra) by the Supreme Court and rightly not pressed into service on behalf of the petitioners. The argument that the language of the letter of appointment dated 14.6.1996 is specific of a fresh appointment, not questioned by the petitioner, does not appeal to the Court. The recitals in the order have to be read as a whole and cannot be truncated to suit either side. The order is not one of appointment simpliciter as discussed above, but is one in conjunction of appointment by way of absorption. Delay, 5 therefore, cannot be an issue for the petitioner to question it in the limited manner that he has done. If the period of service in the corporation under a policy scheme for absorption has to be considered for grant of time bound promotion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it shall also have to be computed for the purpose of reckoning his period of pensionary service. Not to do so shall create an anomalous position. It shall not only frustrate the purpose of absorption, but shall create a peculiar situation where it was being counted for certain purposes and not for certain purposes with no tangible differentiation for the purpose. This Court, therefore, holds that the period of service spent by the petitioner in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation shall also have to be computed for reckoning his pensionary service. The writ application is allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)