IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12592 of 2002 NANHAKU RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 20.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Accountant General, Bihar. The petitioner was appointed as a Chaukidar on 11.11.1961 in the pay scale of Rs. 62.50-67.50/- in the work charge establishment. On 12.10.1981 he was brought into regular establishment as Daftari in the pay scale of Rs. 375-480. He was then granted first time bound promotion by order dated 9.12.1987 with effect from 20.10.1981 reckoning his period of service in the work charge establishment also when second time bound promotion followed on 22.1.1991 with effect from 11.11.1986. These time bound promotions were withdrawn on 25.5.2001 by a non-speaking order after his retirement on 30.11.2000 and recovery ordered on 7.6.2001. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 7157 of 2002 which was disposed on 5.7.2002 noticing that he had filed a representation with directions to consider the same. The impugned order dated 7.10.2002 has followed thereafter. The orders dated 25.5.2001 and 7.6.2001 have therefore merged into the order dated 7.10.2002. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the time bound promotion was a measure to prevent stagnation in the same rank. If during this period when the eligibility for grant 2 of time bound promotion fructified, a Government servant has been given substantive promotion, resulting in escalation of his pay scale, the question of grant of time bound promotion to him does not arise. The petitioner was promoted on 12.10.1981 to the superior post of Daftari from the erstwhile lower post of Chaukidar held by him. This resulted in monetary benefit to him also of the promotional post. The period of first time bound promotion, therefore, has to be reckoned from 12.10.1981 and not from 11.11.1961. The second time bound promotion, therefore, also has to be reckoned on that basis. Counsel for the petitioner from paragraph 5 of the impugned order dated 7.10.2002 submitted that the monetary benefits of promotion to the post of Daftari was not given to the petitioner. Paragraph 6 of the impugned order itself states that the monetary benefits were being paid only after 27.3.1987 when second time bound promotion has been granted with effect from 11.11.1986. Therefore, if the petitioner has not been given the monetary benefits of the substantive promotion to the post of Daftari and the same has been done only for the purpose of seniority, the principle behind grant of first time bound promotion to prevent stagnation does not stand fulfilled. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the grant of first time bound promotion from 12.10.1981 reckoning his service from 11.11.1961. The issue of computing the period of work charge establishment for the purpose of time bound promotion is not in 3 controversy on behalf of either of the parties. This Court on a reading of the impugned order dated 7.10.2002 is unable to satisfy itself of any findings recorded therein that the petitioner has actually been paid the monetary benefits of the higher pay scale of the post of Daftari. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be right in his submission from Annexure-5 that monetary benefits of this substantive promotion were not made available to him. From paragraph 6 of the same, this Court gets the impression that monetary benefits have been given only after the second time bound promotion. That the question whether the petitioner has been granted monetary benefits of the substantive promotion to the post of Daftari along with the pay scale of the same remains undeciphered. The impugned order is hardly of any help with regard to the same. Had the Respondents passed an order with clarity dealing with paragraph 5 and explaining that subsequently this monetary benefit of the higher scale of Daftari was also made available to the petitioner at a later date, though retrospectively, perhaps there may have been no occasion for this Court to interfere. If the monetary benefit of the promotion to the post of Daftary was not given, but only seniority was given, the petitioner shall be a loser at both ends. He is denied first time bound promotion for reason of such substantive promotion but is denied the monetary benefit of such substantive promotion. This Court is informed that deduction of Rs. 4 61,206/- has already been made from the gratuity of the petitioner. The petitioner is a retired employee. This Court directs the Respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order specific to the issue whether actual monetary benefit of promotion to the post of Daftari on 12.10.1981 was given to him by the grant of higher pay scale, if so, from what date. On that basis the Respondents shall re-determine the issue of the date of eligibility of the first and second time bound promotion to the petitioner. If the actual monetary benefit of this substantive promotion was not made available to the petitioner, the order dated 7.10.2002 shall clearly become unsustainable. If it has been made available even though on subsequent date but with retrospective effect, the impugned order shall require no interference. Let such consideration be done and an order be passed with clarity by Respondent no. 4 within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. For the limited purpose, only of application of mind afresh, the impugned order dated 7.10.2002 is set aside. The application stands disposed with the aforesaid observation. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)