IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4300 of 2006 JAGDISH PRASAD CHAUBEY Versus THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK & Ors. ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s.D.K.Pd.Sinha & B.Prasad, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr.S.K.Singh,Advocate ---------- 3 5.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has superannuated from service of respondent Land Development Bank on 31.12.2004. He joined the service of the bank as stenographer in the year, 1972 in the pay scale of Rs. 160-260. He seems to have got promotion to grade one scale in 1977 but subsequently on the recommendation of the 3rd Pay Revision Committee there was a merger of the scale of stenographer grade one and grade two. Petitioner claimed promotion after having rendered several years of service. But when nothing come out of it he filed a writ application bearing CWJC No. 799 of 1995 ( R). The Court after hearing the parties did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for the reasons indicated in the order dated 7.12.95 which has been brought on record as annexure C series with the counter affidavit. A LPA was filed against the order of learned Single Judge which is LPA No. 9 of 1996 ( R). Vide order dated 4.4.2002 the Division Bench did not find any infirmity with the decision of learned Single Judge and appeal was dismissed. After passing of the order by the Division Bench on 4.4.2002 the petitioner has superannuated on - 2 - 31.12.2004 without getting any promotion to a higher scale despite thirty years of service. The Division Bench however before parting with the order did observe that in case any occasion for grant of promotion arose petitioner shall be considered if he is otherwise found fit. This observation of the Court had no meaning because nothing came to be done between the time the decision in LPA was rendered and the date of superannuation. After a couple of years on retirement from service the petitioner has filed the present writ application now claiming time bound promotion. There is no clear indication as to why the petitioner had not asserted his right of time bound promotion when he was in service. But then the Court can take notice of the fact that the petitioner was denied substantive promotion all along and Courts did not find any fault. Just before his retirement the petitioner filed representations contained in annexure-2 as well as annexure-3 claiming that he should be granted time bound promotion. With the given background to the present dispute or claim as well as time frame within which the petitioner has approached, this Court is not willing to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner by passing any direction or writ of mandamus. However since the respondents did not care to respond to the representations of the petitioner filed by him while he was in service, the respondent no.3 is hereby directed that they should at least communicate their decision to the petitioner with regard to the claim for time bound promotion. The Court categorically - 3 - records that it has neither expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner or otherwise. The decision to be taken by the respondents shall be in conformity with the rules and circular applicable to the bank in this regard. Since it is an old issue an early decision preferably with a period of four months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order would resolve the issue one way or the other. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)