IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7483 of 2010 Raj Narayan Kumar, Son of Krishna Kant Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Kajipur Toli, P.O. Babhua, P.S. Jehanabad, District Jehanabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Industrial Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Industrial Development Commissioner, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. Commissioner-cum Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 5. Managing Director, Bihar State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna 6. The Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna 02/ 03.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he be allowed the benefit of the extended retirement age of 60 years, as per Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code already adopted by the Corporation and amended with effect from 24.3.2005 and appreciating such amendment, another Bench of this Court under orders dated 17.8.2009, Annexure-8 allowed the benefit of extended retirement age to Jitendra Nath Verma, an employee of the Corporation, who is presently serving in the Child Development Project Office, Vaishali. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the State and the Corporation that the aforesaid order dated 17.8.2009, Annexure-8 is not binding on the Corporation - 2 - and the State as till date the Board of Directors of the Corporation has not taken any decision to extend the retirement age from 58 to 60 years and highlighting such aspect, L.P.A. No. 214 of 2010 has been filed. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for grant of benefit of the extended retirement age shall be subject to the result of L.P.A. No. 214 of 2010. 4. So far the prayer of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion is concerned, it appears from the information solicited by the petitioner from the Public Information Officer of the Corporation dated 31.10.2008, Annexure-14 that he is entitled for grant of such promotion in the year 1995 and 2005 itself, but his case is not being considered for grant of such promotion, as there is paucity of fund in the Corporation and no sooner the financial position in the Corporation is eased, his case for such promotion shall be considered. 5. Counsel for the petitioner on the contrary submits that others similarly situate have already been granted such promotion, as such, petitioner’s case for grant of such promotion be also considered, but payment aspect may be considered as and when the fund is available. 6. Let the authorities of the Corporation consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound - 3 - promotion, as has been observed under letter of the Corporation dated 31.10.3008, Annexure-14 within three months from the date of removal of the financial stringency in the Corporation. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)