IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.841 of 2009 RAJ KUMAR PRASAD son of Late Gobind Prasad resident of village Bishanput Dutta, P.S. Banmankhi, District Purnia, retired as Head Clerk, Irrigation Division, Banmankhi, Purnia. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Water Resources Department, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief Water Resources Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnia. 6. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Sub-division, Katihar. -------- For the appellant :- Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat. For the State :- M/S. A. Amanullah, S.C. XVII & S. Rahman, A. C. to S.C. XVII -------- 4 05/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The appellant retired from service on 31.07.1998. He preferred writ petition in question in the year 2009 claiming second time bound promotion with effect from 30.1.1985 and super time scale of pay from 1.1.1996. He also raised a grievance that persons junior to him have been given promotion in super time scale of pay by a recent order and that would explain the delay in approaching this Court for promotions claimed. The writ Court has noticed that the claim for second time bound promotion with effect from 30.1.1985 was given up because for - 2 - that there was no explanation of any kind as to why it could not be claimed while the petitioner was in service. So far as the claim for super time scale of pay is concerned, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6 discloses that all the juniors have been given such promotions with effect form 9.8.1999 under the Assured Career Progression scheme which itself came into force from 9.8.1999 whereas the appellant had retired from service with effect from 31.7.1998. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the State to the so called orders of promotion contained in Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition to show that, in fact, the appellant had been given only ad hoc or provisional promotion prior to 1.9.1983 and, therefore, he cannot claim subsequent promotion on the ground that he was given regular promotion prior to 1.9.1983 and, therefore, he was exempted from passing the departmental examinations. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only ad hoc or officiating/provisional promotions were given at the relevant time because such was the practice during those days and this was on account of lack of cadre post. The petitioner/appellant has already retired from service long back. The stand of the respondents is quite fair that although the appellant received financial benefits of higher posts, they decided not to realise such payments back from the petitioner and only his pension was fixed as per his real entitlement to a particular pay scale. In our view, the writ petition was belated and on merits also - 3 - the petitioner has no good case. We find no merit in this letters patent appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AMIN