ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the wife of a late employee, viz., Shyam Kishore Jha, has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider and grant benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme to her late husband and to also give him time bond promotion and only thereafter, fix the retirement benefit which would be given to the petitioner.

2. The late employee, i.e., the husband of the petitioner, joined service in a work-charged establishment as a Gauze Reader on 22.10.1968, but was regularized in the regular establishment in the Irrigation Department as Accounts Clerk on 09.07.1981 on the payscale of Rs.730-1080 in the light of 4th Pay Revision Report.

3. It is to be noted that in the light of 4th Pay Revision Committee Report, the concept of time bond promotion was introduced, entitling an employee to get the 1st time bond promotion after completion of 10 years of service and the 2nd time bond promotion after completion of 25 years of service, in case such employee was not allowed any regular promotion. The aforesaid scheme was dropped with effect from 01.01.1996. Thereafter, the Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 (in short the A.C.P. Rules of 2003) was brought about which also primarily aimed towards diluting the effect of stagnation in service.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the late employee was entitled to get 1st time bond promotion after 10 years of service with effect from 10.07.1991, but the same was never given to him for which he was entitled. During the service tenure of the late employee, the A.C.P. Rules of 2003, as referred to above, was implemented. The benefits of the aforesaid rules were also not given to the late employee who died, while in service, on 04.09.2009. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner, who is the widow of aforesaid late employee, made a prayer before the respondents for giving to her late husband the benefits of the 1st A.C.P. and the 2nd A.C.P. with effect from 09.08.1999 and 10.07.2005 respectively.

5. It appears that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the late employee had not passed the departmental examination and, therefore, he had not been accorded the benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme.

6. The aforesaid stand of the respondents is sought to be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that grant of financial progression under the A.C.P. Rules of 2003 is not a vertical promotion on any higher post, but only financial up-gradation and the requirement of passing departmental examination would not be applicable to the case of the late husband of the petitioner for grant of time bond promotion and A.C.P.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Bench of this Court in the case of Bishwanath Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar reported in, (2011) 2 PLJR 136, has held that there is no requirement of an employee to undergo any examination for confirmation of time bond promotion. Even for grant of benefits of A.C.P., passing of departmental examination would not be necessary, as has been held in the case of Avinash Chandra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in, (2012) 1 PLJR 663.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the State, with reference to the counter affidavit, has opposed the aforesaid contention of the petitioner on the ground that the late employee would have only been given the benefits of 1st time bond promotion on his passing Departmental Accounts Examination, which has been made an essential condition by a guideline issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar. Even for the late employee being eligible for the benefits of A.C.P., he was required to pass the Departmental Accounts Examination, which was not done. The aforesaid argument has been advanced on the strength of sub-Clause (5) of Rule 4 of the A.C.P. Rules of 2003, which contemplates that any employee claiming bene