IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2159 of 2004 RAM LAKSHMAN PRASAD SINHA SONOF LATE RAM BHAGWAN SINGH @ BHAGWAN SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA EAST PATEL NAGAR, ROAD NO. 5, PATNA, P.S. SHASHTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT CUM TYPIST CORRESPONDENCE CLERK IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DIVISION No. 7. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, P.H.E.D. (DESIGN AND PLANNING) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.E.D. (DESIGN AND PLANNING) CIRCLE NO. 3, DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.E.D. (DESIGN AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey. For the State :- Mr. S.S. Mishra, A.C. to G.A. V. ----- 3 06/07/2010 Petitioner entered into service as an Assistant-cum- Typist under the Public Health Engineering (Design and Planning ) Division, Government of Bihar on 30.08.1980. He came to be regularized by the department and after ten years of service was granted first time bound promotion with effect - 2 - from 6.9.1990 with pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. Order issued by the respondents is annexure-3 to the writ application. This benefit conferred upon the petitioner in terms of annexure-3 was unilaterally taken away by the respondents vide order dated 30.09.1999 (annexure-4 to the writ application). By virtue of this order benefit of time bound promotion granted to the petitioner was taken away, order of recovery made and the date of promotion was re-fixed to 1999 in view of the fact that the petitioner had not passed the Accounts examination which was required to be done as per the Board Misc. Rules and the necessary provision under Rule 157(3)(j). Petitioner wants quashing of this decision i.e. annexure-4 on the ground that the benefit of time bound promotion cannot be linked with passing of Accountancy examination and that the benefit of higher pay scale was granted to him under the fourth Pay Revision recommendation that all such employees who had no avenues of promotion would get first time bound promotion after completion of ten years of service and a second time bound promotion after twenty five years of service. The very concept of time bound promotion was based on number of - 3 - years the employees have served with lack of avenues of promotion and the same cannot be mixed up with the provisions of the Board Misc. Rules. Reading of the said provision would show that passing of the departmental examination is linked with promotion to the selection grade or with regard to crossing of Efficiency Bar. Since time bound promotions are neither of the two category promotions, therefore, the respondents have misapplied themselves to the Rules and denied him the benefit which was conferred upon him by virtue of annexure-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on an un-reported decision on a similar issue which was the case of Nawal Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No. 13369 of 2004 wherein in an identical situation the learned Single Judge by order dated 2.11.2006 categorically held that grant of time bound promotion cannot be linked with passing of Accountancy examination in terms of the Board Misc. Rules. Learned counsel for the State submits that a similar matter had travelled to the Full Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ applications which is the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in - 4 - 2000(4) PLJR, 262. Full Bench after considering the entirety of the submissions had held that due to the given factual position passing of Accounts examination was not necessary for the period between 1.5.1980 and 29.3.1982 but after 1985 it was made mandatory in view of the amended rules which was brought about by the State. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the State on the decision of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) has no application to the issue raised by the present petitioner. Question of time bound promotion was not even remotely linked with the matter considered by the Full Bench in rendering the decision. Issue is whether time bound promotion could be linked with passing of Accountancy examination in terms of the Board Misc. Rules. The decision is otherwise. Obviously, the respondents have not understood the import and applicability of the two provisions which an employee is entitled to. Time bound promotion granted to the petitioner in terms of annexure-3 is restored. Annexure-4 is quashed. This writ application is allowed. If any deduction has been made pursuant to annexure-4, then the respondents are directed to - 5 - refund the same to the petitioner in an appropriate manner within a reasonable time frame. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)