LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.957 OF 2005 ******* Against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7615 of 2002. ******* SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE Pavitra Singh, resident of Village- Goraur, Police Station-Chhabilapur, (Rajgir), District- Nalanda. ….. Petitioner….Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. …. Respondents…..Respondents. ******* For the Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pramod Kumar & Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocates. For the S t a t e: Mr. Arvind Ujjawal, S.C. XI with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, A.C. to S.C. XI. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ******* S.K. Katriar, J. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7615 of 2002 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 28.7.2005, whereby the writ petition was 2 dismissed, and the impugned order recalling the time-bound promotion, has been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant on the vacant post of the then incumbent until a permanent arrangement was made, on a purely temporary basis, and liable to termination without notice, vide order dated 11.11.1970, issued under the signature of the concerned Executive Engineer. He was confirmed on the same post with effect from 1.6.1978, vide order dated 9.12.1991. In view of spelling mistake with respect to the petitioner’s name, the authorities issued corrigendum dated 27.7.1993. The petitioner was granted first time-bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981, vide order dated 18.3.1985. He was granted the second time-bound promotion with effect from 12.11.1995, vide order dated 13.1.1999. This was followed by the impugned order dated 17.11.2000, whereby the said order dated 18.3.1985, granting first time-bound promotion to the petitioner was recalled leading to the writ petition. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent on the face of it that the impugned order does not assign any reason for recall of the order granting the first time-bound 3 promotion. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has found that the writ petitioner was not appointed as a work-charged employee in the work-charged establishment but was appointed on a purely ad- hoc basis against a vacant post of the then incumbent until permanent arrangement was made. He has also noticed regularization of the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.1978. It thus appears to us that, in view of the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service with effect from 11.11.1970, primarily because he was appointed, though on a temporary and ad-hoc basis, against a permanent post, and not in the work- charged establishment. We surely get an impression that the writ petitioner initially entered into service without following the prescribed procedure. The present case is, therefore, covered by Clause (B) of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (A.I.R. 1990 SC 1607), which is reproduced hereinbelow: “44. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” 4 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner’s service commenced on 11.11.1970, and was granted first time-bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981, which was after expiry of the period of ten years. It is further relevant to state that the scheme of time-bound promotion was enforced by the State Government with effect from 1.4.1981. It is well settled that, after promulgation of the scheme for time-bound promotion, the service of the employee can be counted from the date of entry into service for the purpose of computation of service, but the money benefit will flow from the date the same was enforced. We, therefore, disagree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. In the result, this appeal, as well as the writ petition are allowed. The impugned order dated 17.11.2000, is hereby set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) S.P. Singh, J. I agree. (S.P. Singh, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 3rd day of December, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR).