IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5495 of 2000 JITENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11694 of 2006 JITENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Amresh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr N.K.Sinha, AAG 10, Mr Sanjay Kumar, JC to AAG 10 and Mr Mayank Rukhaiyar, JC to GA 5 ------- 5. 15.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsels for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.8.2000 at Annexure 11. It shifts his date of first time bound promotion. The controversy is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to his first time bound promotion on completion of ten years of service consequent to his induction into regular scale as an untrained teacher in 1976 or whether he will be entitled to compute the period from January 1984 when he completed his training and was granted trained scale of teacher. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Annexure 5 dated 17.6.1995 to contend that in pursuance of an agreement arrived at between the employees and the State Government, excluding those appointed by the Managing Committee, others appointed by the State authorities were required to be considered for time bound promotion from their date of initial appointment itself. He also relied upon an order passed by the Commissioner, Patna dated 8.1.2001 in Case No. 86 & 99/98 to contend that the time bound promotion has to be reckoned from the date of induction into regular establishment. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has also raised the issue that he was originally correctly granted time bound promotion with effect from 2.12.1984 reckoning the period when he was appointed on stipened from November 1974 till his induction into regular establishment in 1976, this Court is not persuaded by the argument to that extent as the appointment on stipend have purely fortuitous implication and cannot create any right. Right if any could create from the date of induction in regular establishment. The claim to that extent is therefore negated. Counsel for the State contended that before the petitioner could complete the period of ten years from the date of induction into regular establishment, he completed his training and was granted trained scale. This resulted in enhancement of his pay scale. Since the petitioner had the benefit of higher scale within a period of ten years question of grant of any time bound promotion during this period did not arise. The computation has to be done for the purpose from January 1984 and therefore order dated 29.8.2000 which grants him the benefits from 27.1.1996 requires no interference. To this Court, at this stage, it requires verification of facts as to what exactly was the scope of settlement arrived at between employees’ union and the State Government. That aspect does not appear to have come up for consideration in the impugned order at Annexure 11. Additionally the Commissioner himself appears to have held that the period has to be computed from the date of induction into regular establishment. The counter affidavit of the respondents also does not take into consideration the order of the Commissioner passed in appeal. The only appropriate order to be passed at this stage is therefore to set aside the order dated 29.8.2000 and to direct the Commissioner competent for the District of Katihar to pass a fresh appropriate order upon proper consideration of the materials presently discussed and dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. CWJC No. 5495 of 2000 stands disposed. CWJC No. 11694 of 2006 shall abide by the final orders to be passed by the Commissioner. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)