Kali Charan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Agricultural Production Commission Cum

for grant of first time bound promotion in terms of the government policy dated 30.12.1981 is wholly misconceived. The said government policy in no uncertain terms had laid down as follows:- “11. With regard to time-bound promotion, the Fourth Pay Revision Committee have made following recommendations:- (i) Personnel management should envisage providing at Patna High Court CWJC No.15430 of 2012 (3) dt.19-02-2013 2 least two promotions to each and every employee in Government service, the first by the end of ten years of service and the second by the end of 25 years of service. (ii) If an employee who is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by 10 years of service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be promoted to the junior selection grade at the end of the tenth year.

(iii) If an employee, although otherwise found fit for a second promotion, has not been able to secure a second promotion by the 25th year of his service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be promoted to the senior selection grade at the end of the 25th year. (iv) The aforesaid facilities should be extended to all employees whether they belong to any formally constituted service or cadre, or not and including employees holding isolated posts. In their case, the pay scale immediately higher than the pay scale prescribed for the basic post should be considered as the pay scale for the junior selection grade, and the pay scale immediately higher to that of the aforesaid junior selection grade should be deemed to be the pay scale for the senior selection grade. (v) The aforesaid scheme of time bound promotion will not be applicable to services, cadres and posts of which the maximum of the pay scale of the basic grade exceeds Rs.2,000.

(vi) The other conditions, the rules and procedures meant Patna High Court CWJC No.15430 of 2012 (3) dt.19-02-2013 3 for usual promotion should be followed in case of the aforesaid time bound system also. (vii) Since the aforesaid scheme is meant as an anti- stagnation measure, it should be applicable in case of only such employees who have not been able to get the first or the second promotion, as the case may be. In other words, the benefit of the time bound system should be extended to those who are stagnating in the same pay scale to which they were appointed or its corresponding revised pay scale. The benefit should not be made applicable to such employees who, after once joining Government service have, for any reason, been elevated to a higher pay scale, by promotion, merger or even upgradation. This should require issue of specific orders in case of every employee which should obviously be done only after a careful examination of his service record.

(viii) The aforesaid scheme is obviously not intended to deny any employee earlier promotion that comes in his favour in the usual course. The above recommendations have been accepted by Government subject to the condition that the benefit of time bound promotion over and above the selection grade quota of posts as envisaged in paragraph 10, will be allowed to eligible employees only after first exhausting the possibility of accommodating such employees against the vacancies available in the selection grade.” In view of the above, the reliance placed by Mr. Mahesh Kumar Parbat, learned counsel for the petitioner on a subsequent circular dated 21.3.1990 will be of no avail, inasmuch as, the whole scheme of the time bound promotion was based on Patna High Court CWJC No.15430 of 2012 (3) dt.19-02-2013 4 the principle of removal of ante stagnation measure. The time bound promotion in fact was again to secure at least enhancement in the pay-scale of the working employee, who had not got such a benefit on account of promotion.

In the case of the petitioner, he got promoted from Class-IV post of a Packer to a Class-III post of Price Reporter and was placed in the higher pay-scale which in its turn had the effect of removal of stagnation by way of higher salary. For such employees, the ante stagnation measure would have been only available by way of second time bound promotion if in the meantime he had not been given such promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner has been given the second time bound promotion with effect from 16.5.1990 on completion of twenty- five years of service as is clearly recorded in the impugned order. Thus, this Court does not find any error in the following portion of the impugned order while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for time bound promotion. ^^Jh dkyhpj.k izlkn] lsokfuo`r] ewY; izfrosnd] fcgkj jkT; d`f’k foi.ku i’kZn ¼fo0½] iVuk] fcgkj dh izFke fu; qfDr oxZ&4 ds iSdj] osrueku& 70&80 :0 fnukad 20-02-65 dks gqbZA Jh izlkn dks oxZ&4 ds in ls oxZ&3 ds ewY; izfrosnd osrueku 105&155 :0 fnukad 16-05-65 dks in Hkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls izksUufr nh xbZ gSA Jh izlkn dks foRr Patna High Court CWJC No.15430 of 2012 (3) dt.19-02-2013 5 foHkkx ds ldYi la0& 10770 fnukad 30-12-81 dh dafMdk&11 ds vuqlkj 25 o’kZ dh lsok iwjh djus ij fu; ekuqlkj osrueku 1200&1800 :0 esa f}rh; dkyc) izksUufr nh xbZ gSA ftldh lEiqf’V l{ke inkf/kdkjh }kjk dh x;h gSA pWwfd Jh izlkn oxZ&4 ds in ls oxZ&3 ewY; izfrosnd ds in ij izksUufr ik pqds gSa blfy, bUgsa izFke dkyc) izksUufr fu; ekuqlkj ns; ugha gSA blfy, Jh izlkn dks f}rh; dkyc) izksUufr 1200&1800@& :0 ds LFkku ij osrueku 1320&2040 :0 nsuk fu; ekuqdwy mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA** That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-