STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAM LAKSHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters patent of the Patna High Court Rules, the original respondent in the writ petition, has assailed the judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge on 9.5.2006 in CWJC No. 16285 of 2004 whereby the reversion and recovery order recorded by the State Government, copy whereof is produced as Annexure 1 to the Writ petition, came to be quashed, directing the State to re -refund recovered amount to the respondent original writ petitioner within three months. In default, interest at the rate of 10% per annum was ordered to be paid.

(2.) LET there be a narration of few relevant and material factual profile so as to examine and appreciate the merits of the rival contentions advanced before us.

(3.) LATER on, it was noticed by the respondent authority that the time bound; promotion was, wrongly given. Before can Equivalent Citation:2007 -PLJR -1 -31 celling the order, a show cause notice came to be served to the petitioner. Pursu -ant to the show cause notice, a reply was filed. The authority considering the reply, rejected the contention raised in the reply that the time bound promotion granted to;the original writ petitioner was wrong. In other words, the order came to be passed for cancellation of the first time bound promotion. In strict sense, it was not a case of promotion but the time bound promotion means, if a person does not get promotion within the stipulated period of time, he is given the scale of the higher post. Obviously, there is a purpose and policy behind it to avoid a sense of despondency and dissatisfaction and resultant frustration on account of not getting the promotional post after certain period of time. Following chronological events would be relevant for the purpose : - Date Event