IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3366 of 2011 Satish Chandra Singh, son of Late Prameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla – Habibpur, P.O. & P S – Shohsarai, District - Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Commissioner, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Patna. 7. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nalanda. ----------- 02. 7.7.2011 Petitioner was Accounts Clerk in the Minor Irrigation Department posted at Biharsharif. The Superintending Engineer vide notification issued on 27.12.1986 granted benefit of time-bound promotion to the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 14.10.1983 but financial benefit from 1.4.1985. This order is Annexure-1. The order also indicates that it is a provisional grant to the petitioner. Despite the said notification the benefit never accrued to the petitioner compelling him to approach the authorities as well as the High Court. One of his writ which stood disposed of in the year 2010 gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner on this count. The Divisional Commissioner as per the order contained in Annexure-12 dated 31st December, 2010, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the respondents were correct in not giving him the benefit because he did not pass the departmental accounts examination. 2 From a reading of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, it is evident that the petitioner had produced a series of decisions given by the High Court on the point that in matters of time-bound promotions passing of a departmental examination of any kind is not a pre-condition. Such decisions have also been brought on record by the petitioner as annexures. However, taking que from a resolution of the Finance Department No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 the Divisional Commissioner opined that all the conditions which apply for substantive promotions also apply in matters of time-bound promotion. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the Divisional Commissioner is erroneous seems to be correct because if the declaration of law has been made by the High Court that no pre-conditions exist including the condition of passing accounts examination for grant of time- bound promotions, then claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the basis of the Government resolution of 1981. Thousands of employees have walked away with the time-bound promotions despite not passing departmental examination, there is no reason why petitioner should be isolated and denied this benefit on the basis of the reasoning given by the Divisional Commissioner. Annexure-12 to that extent is quashed. Direction is issued to the respondents that the petitioner would be given the 3 benefit in terms of Ananexure-1 at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. Writ is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)