CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in the Collectorate at Darbhanga on 1/6/1960. He retired on 31/10/1993.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been granted the 1st Time Bound Promotion with effect from 9/4/1981 in stead of 14/8/1991. The reason for depriving the petitioner from the benefit of 1st Time Bound Promotion is two-fold. It has been contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner had not passed the Accounts examinations and, therefore, he was not entitled for consideration for the Time Bound promotion. The second reason for depriving the petitioner is that certain allegations and charges were pending against him, which were cleared by the order of the Collector, Darbhanga vide memo no. 326 dated 18th February, 1994 and thus, he could not get his 1st Time Bound Promotion during his tenure in service. The scheme for Time Bound Promotion as contained in Annexure-3 envisages that 'a person who has not been granted promotion or that there are no avenues of promotion available to him would be granted Time Bound Promotion. Clause 11 of the scheme envisages that 'an employee who is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by ten 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 permitted to the junior selection grade at the end of the tenth year.

(3.) Relying on the aforesaid scheme for grant of Time Bound Promotion, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds for depriving the petitioner from the benefit of the Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1/4/1981 and granting him promotion with effect from 14/8/1991 is beyond the scheme and against the rules of the State Government. The facts reveal that the Collector had allowed the prayer of the petitioner and exempted him from appearing in the accounts examination on 30/3/1988 as the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 and, thereafter, he was considered for grant of the junior selection grade. It is erroneous to presume that the petitioner was required to pass the accounts examination for grant of Time Bound Promotion. The incumbent claiming promotion against Clause 10 of the scheme for grant of regular promotion is required to clear the efficiency bar and the accounts examination, but it is not essential for a person who is to be granted Time Bound Promotion to clear the accounts examination. As such, the plea of the State Government, that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of promotion until he had been granted the exemption is a incorrect stand and cannot be accepted by this Court in view of the fact that there is no such condition for grant of Time Bound Promotion.