Entitlement to time bound promotions under the relevant provisions.

1. I.A. No. 2427 of 2010: This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner seeking, inter alia, permission of the Court to assail the validity of the order bearing memo no. 2036 dated 26.7.2005 passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnia disposing of the claim of the petitioner in the light of the directions of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7219 of 1999.

2. The prayer made in the interlocutory application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to assail the validity of the order in the present proceedings.

3. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to AAG-6 for the State and Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, learned counsel representing the Accountant General.

4. With the consent of the parties the matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

5. The petitioner questions the date of grant of his first time bound promotion as also the non-grant of the second time bound promotion by the respondents who according to the petitioner have misread the relevant provisions while taking decision.

6. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Steno-typist on 17.3.1964. Under a policy decision dated 21.12.1973, the Steno-typists working in the Mufassil Offices were brought in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk, copy of the said policy decision taken by the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar has been placed at Annexure-1 to the interlocutory application. Consequent upon the said policy decision, the petitioner, vide order dated 14.2.1974, was posted as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Assistant) with effect from 9.1.1973 (Annexure-2A). Under the 4th Pay Revision, which came into effect from 1.4.1981, a scheme for time bound promotion was introduced prescribing for promotion on completion of ten years service and 25 years service, in case the incumbent did not get regular promotion in the cadre. Following the scheme of the time bound promotion,the petitioner was granted first time bound promotion vide order dated 6.11.2004. As the case of the petitioner was not being considered for second time bound promotion, he came before this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 7219 of 1999 and which was disposed of by order dated 9.12.2004 (Annexure-E) with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his claim before the authority concerned and who would consider and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. In the light of the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner filed a representation and which was disposed of by order bearing memo no. 2036 dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit and Annexure-4 to the interlocutory application).

7. In so far as the first time bound promotion is concerned, the Chief Engineer treating the posting of the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk as an entry in service, has held that the petitioner would be entitled to the first time bound promotion with effect from 9.1.1983, i.e. 10 years subsequent to his posting as Lower Division Clerk on 9.1.1973 vide Annexure-2 to the interlocutory application. It is stated that the next time bound promotion is to be given only after completion of 25 years of service and which would fall on 9.1.1998, but since the time bound promotion scheme was closed with effect from 31.12.1995, hence the petitioner was not entitled to 2nd time bound promotion. It is stated that under the pay revision which came into effect from 1.1.1996 a separate scheme of promotion was provided known as Assured Career Progression (A.C.P. for short).

8. The issue is whether the findings of the Chief Engineer regarding the claim of the petitioner for time bound promotion(s) is correct and has lawful support.

9. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that there is no dispute with regard to the appointment of the petitioner