IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14692 of 2008 NARENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner:- Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary & Mr. Nagendra Kumar For the Respondents:- Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A-VI ----------- 02. 16.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was first appointed in the work charged establishment on 10.9.1973. He was subsequently brought into the regular establishment on 12.10.1981 on the post of Correspondence Clerk. First time bound promotion then followed with effect from 1.5.1984. The petitioner continued to receive his salary along with increments and pay revision till the issuance of a show cause notice nearly 23 years later on 14.8.2007 as to why the period spent in the work charged establishment should not be taken into consideration for time bound promotion and his date of first time bound promotion be refixed from 12.10.1981 making him eligible for the same from 20.10.1991. Since he had not cleared the departmental accounts examination he was not eligible for the promotion from the latter date also. The petitioner replied to the same when final 2 orders have been passed on 2.11.2007 for cancellation of his first time bound promotion and directing recovery. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.7.2008. Prior thereto an order had been issued on 17.4.2007 by the respondents exempting him from passing the departmental Accounts examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that there was no mis-representation by the petitioner to obtain the first time bound promotion. It was highly inequitable for the respondents to cancel the same nearly 23 years latter on the eve of his retirement. In any event he has now been granted exemption also. Learned counsel for the State urged that the petitioner was not entitled to count his period of service in the work charged establishment for time bound promotion. The exemption was applicable prospectively from 17.4.2007. Time bound promotion is not substantive promotion, but is granted to prevent stagnation. The petitioner is not stated to have obtained such time bound promotion on 1.5.1984 by any mis-representation. On the contrary, it were the respondents who granted him that promotion after examination of his service records. At this belated stage, keeping in mind that the impugned order has been passed barely six months before his superannuation. 3 This Court is not persuaded to allow the respondents to re- open issues of the time bound promotion, whether it be from 1.5.1984 or 12.10.1981. While the former stand covered by unexplained delay on part of the respondents themselves, the show cause notice not mentioning any reason, why it was being re-opened after 23 years the latter stands satisfied on grant of exemption as a matter of fact. This Court finds it unjust and inequitable to allow the respondents to do so. Keeping in mind that it was a time bound promotion and not a substantive promotion to a higher post this Court in view of the long passage of time, the grant of exemption and the superannuation barely months away is satisfied that the order dated 2.11.2007 merits interference. The Supreme Court in (2009) 6 SCC 314 (PARAS NATH SINGH VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS) at paragraph-4, considering cancellation of a time bound promotion after ten years held as follows:- “4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the State authorities had allowed the appellant to work for about 10 years and paid the salary at the enhanced rate, in which the appellant had no role to play except that he had given an undertaking to the authorities that in the event his first time-bound promotion was cancelled, in that case, he would be bound to refund the same.” 4 The order dated 2.11.2007 is accordingly quashed. The application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)