IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9960 of 2006 NARESH PRASAD SINHA, son of Late Bidhya Prasad resident of Mohalla- Harnichak, Police Station- Phulwarisharif, Post office- Anishabad, District- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. Additional Secretary, Joint Cadre, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 5. Deputy Secretary, Joint Cader, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 11.01.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. The prayer made in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ and/or orders and/or direction, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Under Secretary, from 7.9.1997 as the petitioner has completed the Kalabhadi (Time Bound Promotion) which is necessary for promotion and quash Annexure-3 by which the respondents has refused to give paper promotion to the petitioner and also direct the petitioner to give all the retrial benefit of the post of Under Secretary to the petitioner.” It has to be noted from the pleading on record that the grievance of the 2 petitioner for his promotion on the post of Under Secretary was raised by him after almost eight years of his retirement inasmuch as the petitioner had superannuated from service on 30.6.1998 and the present writ application was filed on 17.8.2006. There is absolutely no explanation with regard to delay of nine years in filing of the writ application relating to a cause of action of 7.9.1997 inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner that he became eligible for promotion on the post of under Secretary on or after 7.9.1997. Delay apart, respondents have explained the whole thing that the entitlement for a Section Officer to earn promotion on the post of under Secretary had been decided by the Government by making amendment in the Joint Cadre Amendment Act, 2004 and the consequential Notification No. 131 dated 27.7.2004 which was only prospective w.e.f. 27.7.2004. The petitioner therefore had also to be governed by service rules and the provisions which were existing on the date of his retirement. It has also been clearly asserted in 3 the counter affidavit that no person junior to the petitioner has been granted promotion on the post of Under Secretary prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner. This part of the statement in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit has sought to be controverted in paragraph 8 of rejoinder but in a most vague and bald manner without mentioning the name of even one person allegedly junior to the petitioner who was promoted on the post of under Secretary till the date of retirement of the petitioner. The only difference between time bound promotion and a regular promotion is that the person claiming regular promotion on a higher post can get it provided some junior to him has also been promoted. Merely because the petitioner had completed Kalawadhi (Minimum period of service) which would only entitle him or make him eligible for the consideration for promotion of higher post will not mean that such a person has to be also promoted on the higher post on the date on which he completes his Kalawadhi. That in fact is only difference between time bound promotion and 4 the regular promotion. Considering all these aspects which emerge from the pleadings on record, this court is fully satisfied that there is no merit in this writ application which must be and is hereby, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)