- (1.) THE appellants (State of Jharkhand and others) have challenged the order dated 10th December, 2002, passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3354 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge while set aside the order, contained in letter No. 14967, dated 11th November, 1985 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) to the extent the date of time bound promotion of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) is concerned, the appellants have been directed to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of Annexures -10 and 11 of the writ petition, whereby two juniors to the writ petition have been given promotion with effect from the year, 1987 with a further direction to provide the writ petitioner all the consequential benefits of such promotion.
(2.) FROM the facts, as admitted by the parties, it appears that the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) was initially appointed on 9.5.1957. Subsequently his services were terminated on 1st September, 1968. Thereafter, he was re -employed to the post of Skilled Artisan on 12th September, 1970, pursuant to which he joined the post on 18th September, 1970. The State Government vide its letter No. 4036, dated 4th June, 1992 held that the period between 1st September, 1968 to 11th September, 1970 shall be treated to be break. In service but the period prior to that shall be considered for pension and promotion. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) was granted 1st time bound promotion with effect from 1st April, 1981 vide letter No. 14967, dated 11th November, 1985 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition). He was not happy with the same as according to him, he was entitled for 1st time bound promotion from an early date. Thereafter, he was granted 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 18th September, 1995. However, this time also he was not happy with the same. He sought for his 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 25th May, 1984 on the ground that he had completed 25 year of service since 1957, excluding the period he was out of service. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the scheme for time bound promotion came into force with effect from 1st April, 1981 by Government 'sResolution No. 3, PCR -3/81/F -10770 Patna, dated 30th December, 1981. It was mentioned therein that a person otherwise eligible for promotion and not granted any promotion within ten years, then in that case such person may be granted the higher grade on completion of 10th year of his service which was made known as 1st Time Bound Promotion Scheme. It was further stipulated that if a person is otherwise fit for promotion and not granted 2nd promotion during his service career, then he will be granted second next higher grade on completion of 25th year of his service, known as 2nd Time Bound Promotion Scheme. In the present case, admittedly the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) was given re -employment on 12th September, 1970 to the post of skilled Artisan, to which he rejoined on 18th September, 1970. In such a situation for the purposes of counting the period for time bound promotion, one has to take into consideration the date which begins from the date of re - employment i.e. 18th September, 1970. The earlier period can not be counted for the purposes of time bound promotion, though. It may be counted for the purposes of regular promotion to the higher post, in terms of letter No. 4036, dated 4th June, 1992. In this respect we may observe that time bound promotion is not a promotion in the eyes of law, as selection grade his higher pay but in the same post. On the other hand, a promotional post is a higher post with a higher rank and status. In this context one may refer the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Mohan Das V/s. Union of India, reported in (1973) 3 SCC 862. In such case, the time bound promotion scheme, having come into existence with effect from 1st April, 1981, the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) can not be given 1st time bound promotion prior to such date i.e. 1st April, 1981. For this reason, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to quash letter No. 14967 dated 11th November, 1985, as contained in Annexure -6 to the writ petition, whereby, the writ petitioner was given 1st time bound promotion with effect from 1st April, 1981. Further, as the time bound promotion is dependant on the length of service, his character roll and is dependant on the question whether he has been granted any promotion or not and whether such person is fit for promotion or not, it has nothing to do with seniority. One can not claim time bound promotion merely on the ground that the cases of juniors have been considered, if he, being senior, has not completed the requisite minimum time limit, as prescribed under the Scheme.
(3.) THE writ petitioner (respondent No. 1), having completed 25 years of service on 18th May, 1995, we find no illegality in the order, granting 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 18th May, 1995.;