Madan Mohan Mishra v. The State Of Bihar & Ors

question of his being entitled for the first time bound promotion in view of paragraph no. 11 of the Government Resolution dated

30.12.1981 which reads as follows:- “11. With regard to time-bound promotion, the Patna High Court CWJC No.3497 of 2013 (2) dt.22-02-2013 2 Fourth Pay Revision Committee have made the following recommendations:- (i)Personnel management should envisage providing at 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 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 including employees holding isolated posts. In their case, the pay scale immediately Patna High Court CWJC No.3497 of 2013 (2) dt.22-02-2013 3 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 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, should 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.3497 of 2013 (2) dt.22-02-2013 4 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 employees against vacancies available in the selection grade.” True it is that the petitioner had not been promoted after 21.4.1977 and, therefore, he could have qualified her second time bound promotion on 21.4.2002 after completion of twenty five years but, the scheme of time bound promotion itself came to an end on 31.12.1995.

In that view of the matter, the petitioner could not have given even the second time bound promotion. The rest of the grievance of the petitioner that he was also not given ACP benefit is also misconceived because the petitioner has admittedly not passed the departmental examination as prescribed in A.C.P. Rules 2003. A clear finding to this effect has also been given by the competent authority in the impugned order, which reads as follows:- Patna High Court CWJC No.3497 of 2013 (2) dt.22-02-2013 5 ^^Jh feJ }kjk f}rh; dkyc) izksUufr ,oa lqfuf” pr foRrh; mUu;u gsrq Hkh vH;kosnu fn;k x;k gS] ijUrq muds vH;kosnu ds vkyksd esa muds lsokiqLr ds v/;;u ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd Jh feJ foHkkxh; ys[kk ijh{kk ds nksuksa i=ksa esa vafre Lrj ls mRrh.kZ ugha gq, gSA vr% vf/klwpuk la[;k 3&,e&2&5&os-iq-&28@99&4685 fo-…2‰ fnukad 25 twu 2003 ds vkyksd esa Jh feJ dks mijksDr nksuksa ykHk vuqekU; ugha gSA Jh feJ }kjk ftyk Hkfo’; fuf/k inkf/kdkjh] njHkaxk ds i=kad 540 fnukad 18-5-11 ds ek/;e ls iszf’kr vkosnu esa 50 o’kZ ls vf/kd vk;q gksus ds vk/kkj ij foHkkxh; ys[kk ijh{kk ls foewfDr gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS] ftls yxkrkj iz; kl ds leqfpr lk{; ds vHkko esa vLohd‘r fd;k tkrk gSA** From the reading of the above, it would be clear that the petitioner had not passed the departmental accounts examination which is a condition precedent for grant of ACP. Today, after the petitioner has already retried from service, there would be also no question of giving retrospective exemption from passing of departmental examination. Thus the petitioner is also not entitled for grant of A.C.P. benefits. That being so, application is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-