Md. Abdul Bashar vs State of Bihar and Others

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.—These two writ petitions are being taken up together at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners as the facts are virtually the same and are being disposed of together instead of dealing with them separately, in view of the submissions made, the facts, as emanating in the first case, would decide the result of both the cases as petitioners submit. The petitioner of the first case, who superannuated on 31.08.1984, was an employee of the Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar. He has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent-State to grant him the second time bound promotion as also to grant him super time scale. A counter affidavit is on record.

It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Inspector on 18.04.1951. Petitioner does not dispute that on 12.08.1961, he was promoted to Junior Class II category. Petitioner does not dispute that on 21.05.1963, he was promoted to Senior Class II category. Petitioner also does not dispute that on 25.01.1978, he was granted the Junior Selection Grade and promoted to Class I. Petitioner states that in 1991, after having superannuated on 31.08.1984, he was granted Senior Selection Grade. Learned counsel for the State points out that this was so granted in fact with effect from 25.01.1983 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is entitled to second time bound promotion on the ground that time bound promotion is a separate and independent promotion from substantive promotion and in addition thereto. He submits that he ought to be granted the super time scale as well after Senior Selection Grade.

Having considered the matter, in my view, both the prayers are misconceived. From the events, as noted above, it would be apparent that petitioner had received four substantive promotions in his service career. Time bound promotion, as envisaged by Government Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981, while accepting the recommendation of the 04th Pay Revision Committee, was as an anti stagnation policy where an employee, though competent to be promoted, could not be promoted because of inadequacy of post at the promotional level. It was provided that if an employee did not get any promotion within the first 10 years of his service, he would be entitled to a time bound promotion being promotion to the next pay scale. If in next 15 years, he did not receive any further promotion, he would get a second time bound promotion to the next higher pay scale.

On the facts noted above, it would be apparent that petitioner has received four substantive promotions prior to his superannuation.

In that view of the matter, the prayer for grant of second time bound promotion is devoid of merit.

The second prayer with regard to super time scale is also misconceived. It is not in dispute that with effect from 25.01.1983, petitioner was granted Senior Selection Grade. The super time scale can only be granted after Kalavdhi of 3 years. Thus, that would be due not before 25th of January, 1986 but the petitioner superannuated on 31.08.1984 itself. Thus, he was not entitled to super time scale.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then referred to judgments in relation to two other employees who were junior to petitioner of the first case and were granted time bound promotion and super time scale by this Court. I have examined both the judgments. They are clearly distinguishable. In the judgments aforesaid, it would be noticed that the Court proceeded on the basis that the petitioners therein received no promotion during their entire service career upto their superannuation. That is not the case in case of the present petitioners. Similarly, on facts, the other person who got super time scale, he was in service when it became due and it was not pointed out to the Court that to get super time scale, there is a Kalavdhi of 3 years. It is in absence of that the Court passed the order granting the super time scale. In that view of the matter, neither of the judgments comes to the aid of the petitioners. The writ petitions merit no consideration and are dismissed accordingly.