IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 1865 of 2003
1 Shiv Narayan Kamat, son of late Sokhi Kamat posted as Correspondence Clerk,
Road Sub Division Clerk, Road Sub Division, Purnea - 2 under Road Division,
Purnea, Road Construction Department, Purnea
2 Prem Nath Jha, son of Sri Harihar Jha presently posted as Correspondence
Celark, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Purnea
3 Tilkeshwar Prasad Biswas, son of Sri Janardan Prasad Biswas, present posted
as Correspondence Clerk, Road Construction Department, Road Division,
Purnea
4 Surendra Prasad Sah, son of Sri Mahabir Prasad Sah, presently posted as
Correspondence Clerk, Road Construction Department, Road Sub Division,
Purnea - 1 under Road Division, Purnea - Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Bihar
2 Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Purnea
-cum- Chairman, Departmental Establishment Committee, Road Construction
Dpartment, Road Circle, Purnea, P S - Khajanchihat, District - Purnea
3 Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Purnea
4 Divisional Accountant, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Purnea
5 District Account Officer, Purnea - Respondents
***
For the petitioners : M/s Bipin Kumar Sinha, Sunil Kumar Ravi,
Advocates
For the S t a t e : Mr Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to GP 7
***
7 13.12.2010 The petitioners are employees in the Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Road Circle at Purnea. They are all
aggrieved by the action of the respondent-District Accounts Officer in
holding that they, not having passed Accountancy Examination, were not
liable to be granted the first time bound promotion. They passed the said
departmental examination in the year, 1998 and would, accordingly, get
the first time bound promotion from that date. Pursuant to the aforesaid,
petitioners’ pay scales were reduced and alleged excess amount paid were
ordered to be recovered. Accordingly, deductions were being made till
2
this Court stayed the deductions. I make it clear that this Court did not
stay reduction in pay but only the recovery of alleged past excess
payments.
Counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the
State submits that the condition for grant of time bound promotion, either
at the end of 10 years or 25 years as the case may be, is an anti stagnation
measure where if an employee is otherwise qualified and competent to be
promoted but cannot get the promotion because of non-availability of
promotional seats, he is given time bound promotion. Here, petitioners
were required, as a matter of course, to pass the departmental examination
in Accounts which they ultimately did in 1998 but notwithstanding that
petitioner No 1 was granted first time bound promotion in 1995 and the
rest in 1990. Mr Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing in
support of the writ petition submits with reference to the Government
Circular as contained in Annexure-8 with regard to time bound
promotion. It does not speak of any departmental examination. To that
extent, he is correct but he is substantially wrong inasmuch as it states that
a person, who is otherwise fit for being promoted, shall be granted time
bound promotion.
In my view, this aspect of the matter, this Court has already
dealt with and discussed in the case of Daya Shankar Singh -Versus-
State of Bihar and others since reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 220. The
scheme of the time bound promotion and the law in that regard has been
dealt in detail and it has been held that no promotion having been granted
to a person for over 10 years, he may still not be liable to be given time
3
bound promotion if there be a requirement of passing departmental
examination in the normal course for seeking promotion and it is not so
passed. However, in fairness to Mr Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner, in that very judgment, this Court has noticed that as petitioner
was not at fault, there could not be any recovery from remunerations paid
to him though necessary corrections with prospective effect could be
made.
Thus, in my view, though this Court holds that State was
correct in withdrawing the time bound promotion as granted to the
petitioners which they would ordinarily be entitled to get. They could
only be entitled to be considered for time bound promotion in 1998 after
they passed the departmental examination. This is, however, subject to
the scheme of time bound promotion being available then. Thus,
substantially the writ petition stands dismissed but so far as recoveries are
ordered to be made and have been made, they cannot be sustained. The
matter could not be reopened after such a long time to the detriment of the
petitioners, some of whom have already retired. Thus, any amount sought
to be recovered and any amount recovered has to be stopped and/or
refunded, as the case may be, to the petitioners. The order, if any, would
operate prospectively only.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)