IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15616 of 2006 BABAN UPADHYAY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey & Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choubey, Advocates 3 29.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was initially joined his service in the work charge establishment but he was absorbed as Correspondence Clerk on 27.8.1983 with effect from 21.3.1981. Petitioner has now retired on 31.1.2011. His grievance is that during entire service career he was not allowed any promotion which also includes time bound promotion or the Assured Career Progression Scheme as introduced by the Government for removal of stagnation of its employees. Petitioner’s case is that on expiry of ten years of his service he was entitled for first time bound promotion on 21.3.1991, first ACP on 9.8.1999 as well as second ACP on 21.3.2005. Similarly situated persons like petitioner have been allowed such benefits but he was discriminated on the ground that he has not passed accounts examination. Placing reliance on the circular of Department of Personnel 2 and Administrative Reform Resolution No. 10/4T- 1017/85-192 dated 19th February 1986, the case of the petitioner is that for grant of first time bound promotion the condition regarding passing of departmental examination of accounts is not at all necessary. The first time bound promotion should be allowed to each and every employee subject to the condition that subsequently he will clear the departmental examination. So far the Assured Career Progression Scheme introduced by the Government in the year 1986 is concerned, for that the passing of the departmental examination is not essential. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State there is complete denial of this fact that petitioner has not been given any promotion throughout his service career. In the counter affidavit the absorption of petitioner in regular establishment on the post of Routine Clerk in the year 1983 with effect from 1981 has been taken as promotion from Class IV to Class III post. In this view, it has been stated that the petitioner was given first promotion on account of his absorption on Class III post. He has already been given merit promotion, as such not entitled for first time bound promotion. So far second 3 time bound promotion is concerned, for that petitioner would have been entitled on completion of 25 years of service but before that the period, the provision regarding time bound promotion was recalled and Assured Career Progression Scheme introduced by the State Government. So far resolution of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application, it is stated that very first paragraph of the circular indicates that Government Employee will be entitled for time bound promotion only in case he fulfills all requisite criteria for a merit promotion. In case of merit promotion passing the departmental examination is essential, as such petitioner cannot claim for time bound promotion or ACP without passing of departmental examination. I find that the stand taken by the respondent regarding one merit promotion to the petitioner is incorrect. The date of petitioner’s entry in service is treated as 21.3.1981 i.e. date of his absorption in the regular establishment on the post of Correspondence Clerk. If petitioner’s date of entry in service is taken to be on 21.3.1981 excluding his past service in the work charge establishment, in that case by no stretch 4 of imagination it can be considered as merit promotion, rather it is absorption from work charge establishment to regular establishment and not promotion from Class IV to Class III post. In this view of the matter, petitioner has rightly pointed that throughout his service career, no promotion was given to him and he stagnated till the date of his retirement. The circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms is very much clear that the first time bound promotion is allowed to the Government employees, even without passing of the departmental examination, if he fulfills all other criteria required for promotion to the next post. In case of the petitioner, it should have been allowed to him in the year 1991 as he completed ten years of his service. He was also entitled for first ACP and second ACP but that was also denied by the respondents on the ground that he did not pass the account examination, although it should not have been a condition precedent for allowing such benefit to the Government employees, since the Scheme itself has been introduced by the State for removal of stagnation in service. Considering all these facts and also that the petitioner has already retired from his service, the 5 respondents are directed to pass necessary orders for granting first time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 21.3.1991 and first ACP as well as second ACP with effect from 9.8.1999 and on 21.3.2005. All consequential benefits accruing on account of first time bound promotion, first ACP and second ACP must be paid to the petitioner. On account of grant of first ACP and second ACP, it is also required that pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner should be recalculated and paid to the petitioner. For compliance of this the respondents will take necessary steps within 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and entire benefits will be paid to the petitioner within this period. The writ application stands allowed. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)