IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16434 of 2001 13 25.11.2008 1. Shambhu Nath Singh son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, resident of mohalla- Andar kila, near Bharat Bharati School, Police State Post Office Hajipur and District Vaishali 2. Sriniwas Gupta son of late Jagdish Prasad, resident of mohalla Ddujra, c/o Sri Ram lakhan Mahto, ACEPHED, West of Gandhi Murti, Police State and post office- Budha Colony, Town and District Patna 3. Digvijay Singh son of late Swargveer Singh, resident of 2- M/49, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Post Office Lohianagar, Police Station Agamkuan, Towan and District Patna Versus 1. State of Bihar through Home (special) Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. ADG-cum- Commandant General, Bihar Home Guard, Head Quarter, Patna 3. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna ------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar. The writ petition was originally filed on behalf of the three petitioners claiming second time bound promotion in appropriate scale. During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner no.3, Digvijay Singh received confirmation of second time bound promotion through a letter dated 6.4.2002 and as a result he has been given second time bound promotion with effect from 1.5.1992 in the pay scale of 2000-3800. The claim of petitioners no.1 and 2 for second time bound promotion has not been accepted by the authorities on the ground that although they got first time bond promotion in the 2 year 1981 but subsequently in 1985 they were promoted to the post of Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 and, therefore, they did not fulfill the criteria for getting second time bound promotion which were given only to those who did not receive any promotion. Finally, the issue has crystallized as to whether the respondents are justified in allowing petitioners no.1 and 2 only scale of Rs.2000-3500 in which they remained till their superannuation on 1.3.2000 and 31.1.2001 respectively and are, therefore, getting lesser pension than petitioner no.3 who is admitted junior to petitioners no.1 and 2, who could not get promotion to the post of Inspector, got second time bound promotion instead and superannuated on 1.3.2001. On behalf of Department of Home the relevant file was produced to show that this Department has written to the Finance Department, Government of Bihar to look into this aspect of the matter and find out any solution in accordance with law. This Court has no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the case petitioner no.1, Shambhu Nath Singh and petitioner no.2, Sriniwas Gupta, being senior to petitioner no.3 and having got promotion on merits to the higher post of Inspector from an earlier date, could not have been treated in a manner so that petitioner no.3, Digvijay Singh, who is junior to 3 them, would get higher salary till his retirement in 2001 and, therefore, he entitled for higher pension. The difference of pension is claimed to be about Rs.400. This is a substantial amount for a retired employee. The aforesaid action of the respondent State of Bihar and concerned authorities is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence, remedial measures have to be taken by the concerned respondents without any delay. In the facts of the case, the parent department of the petitioners no.1 and 2 are directed either to cancel notionally promotion of petitioners no.1 and 2 to the post of Inspector and instead grant them second time bound promotion in the higher pay scale or take any other suitable step to ensure that petitioners no.1 and 2 retire in a pay scale not lower than the scale in which petitioner no.3 retired and they are paid pension which is not lesser than that being paid to respondent no.3. These steps must be taken by all concerned including the Finance Department of the State of Bihar at an early date and in any case within four months from today. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk