AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , a Government employee, was accorded first time bound promotion with effect from 1st April, 1981. He was not accorded the second time bound promotion. After expiry of ten years from the date of grant of first time bound promotion, the appellant became entitled to be considered for grant of second time bound promotion in terms of the policy of the Government as was in vogue until 31st December, 1995. After having had superannuated on 31st July, 1996 the appellant filed a writ petition in 2002, registered as CWJC No. 29 of 2002, seeking a direction upon the State to give the appellant benefit of the second time bound promotion. By the judgment and order under appeal the Court has dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground of delay. No counter -affidavit was filed before the writ court. However, a counter -affidavit has been filed in the present appeal. In that it has been indicated that the conduct of the appellant during the relevant time, i.e., in between 1st April, 1981 and 31st March, 1991, was not appropriate. It has been stated that during the said period the appellant suffered a punishment in a disciplinary proceeding and that he was also absent without authority for a considerable period of time. However, in the said affidavit it has not been stated that the case of the appellant for grant of second time bound promotion was considered and the same was rejected.

(2.) BY reason of the policy decision of the Government, the appellant, as a condition of his service, became entitled to be considered for grant of second time bound promotion after completion of a period of ten years from the date of grant of first time bound promotion, provided he served the same post. In relation to consideration of the case of the appellant for grant of second time bound promotion, according to the policy of the Government, the appellant had nothing to do, but it was the promotional authority of the Government, which had to discharge its obligation owing towards the appellant pursuant to the said policy decision of the Government. That being the position and since the appellant was seeking enforcement of his right arising out of his service conditions, we see no reason for rejecting the writ petition only on the ground of delay. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and at the same time allow the writ petition by directing the appropriate Authority of the State to consider and decide the claim of the appellant for second time bound promotion in accordance with the then policy of the Government as quickly as possible but not later than six months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the appointing Authority of the appellant.