(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is yet another case of a Government servant, who retired as early as on 31st January, 1991, running from pillar to post for payment of his provident fund dues as also certain monetary benefits to which he became entitled by reason of grant of 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 30th May, 1984. The grand of, time bound promotion affects the pensionary due to which the petitioner becomes entitled on the basis of salary last drawn by him, and obviously, the petitioner has been kept deprive of the same for so many years. The usual excuse given by the State is that its various officers do not know that is he penning in the other office. The only suffers are the government employees who are made to run from pillar to post and ultimately to approach this Court for grant of relief. It is not disputed that an order was passed in the year 1991 granting 2nd time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 30th May, 1984. The petitioner claims that he should be given the monetary benefit of that promotion except for the period from 1.1.86 to 29th February, 1989 which is the period for which in view of some government circular, he is not entitled to the payment.
(3.) Counsel for the State now submits that the petitioner could not have been granted 2nd time bound promotion because he was granted 1st time bound promotion in the year 1981 and no person can be granted 2nd time bound promotion within five years of the grant of Ist time bound promotion. There is no warrant for such a broad proposition because a person becomes entitled to the 1st time bound promotion on completing 15 years service and the 2nd time bound promotion in completing 25 years service. It is a common experience that time bound promotion is not granted promptly, and the order granting such promotion is passed much later with retrospective effect. The same was done in the instant case as well when the petitioner was granted 2nd time bound promotion in the year 1991 with effect from 30th May, 1988. It is, therefore, not possible to contend as a matter of rule that two orders granting time bound promotions cannot be passed within a span of five years. It all depends upon the facts of the case, as to when a particular employee became entitled to time bound promotion and when the actual order granting such promotion was passed. The petitioner is, therefore, clearly entitled to the benefit of time bound promotion except for the period above mentioned. If he was under suspension for a certain period [his subsistence allowance has to be suitably refixed having regard to his enhanced pay scale]. He is also entitled to difference thereof.