Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Birendra Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Birendra Singh vs The State of Bihar and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Patna Decided Mar 20, 2007
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/125264

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CWJC No. 6798 of 2006
Subject
;Service
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service laws-Promotion-Not granted as per policy of government-Petitioner, awarded first time bond promotion as per policy-Second time bound promotion granted after calculating period of service as stated in policy-A gap of minimum three years to be maintained between two consequtive promotions-Contention-Should be ...

Key legal issue
;Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Birendra Singh

Advocate Vishwanath Rai and Ajay Kumar, Advs.

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors.

Advocate Rajesh Kr. Sinha No. 1, JC to GP 20

Court's Analysis

Prior History

Barin Ghosh, J.
1. Petitioner came to this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking time bound promotions. There is no dispute that the State came up with a policy to accord two time bound promotions to a person, who is stagnant in the same post for a long period of time. The policy of the Government provided that First Time Bound promotion will be accorded after completion of 10 years or with effect from 1st April, 1987, whichever is earlier, and the Second Time Bound promotion will

Excerpt

service laws-promotion-not granted as per policy of government-petitioner, awarded first time bond promotion as per policy-second time bound promotion granted after calculating period of service as stated in policy-a gap of minimum three years to be maintained between two consequtive promotions-contention-should be granted second promotion after completion of 25 years of service-he is granted promotion two years later-held-first promotion granted on time bound basis-second one also granted on time bound basis-where under the new policy 25 years had to be calculated from joining of service-two years difference in grant of promotion not justified-application allowed. - .....petitioner has been accorded first time bound promotion with effect from 1st april, 1981, the second time bound promotion to the petitioner has been accorded with effect from 1st april, 1989. it does not appear from annexure 3 to the writ petition that the promotion of the petitioner in the workcharge establishment to the post of steam man was to take effect from 1st april, 1964, instead the said annexure made it absolutely clear that such promotion of the petitioner should be recognised with effect from 1st october, 1962.3. during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner, as aforesaid, has been accorded first time bound promotion with effect from 1st april, 1981 and also the second time bound promotion with effect from 1st april, 1989 but having regard to the fact that the petitioner completed 25 years of service in the post of steam man on 1st october, 1987, he is entitled to second time bound promotion with effect from 1st october, 1987 and not from 1st april, 1989. in those circumstances, the decision to accord second time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1st april, 1967 is quashed with a direction upon the state to accord second time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1st october, 1962.4. let the consequential benefits pertaining to the aforesaid directions be given to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.5. the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

Full Judgment

Barin Ghosh, J.

1. Petitioner came to this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking time bound promotions. There is no dispute that the State came up with a policy to accord two time bound promotions to a person, who is stagnant in the same post for a long period of time. The policy of the Government provided that First Time Bound promotion will be accorded after completion of 10 years or with effect from 1st April, 1987, whichever is earlier, and the Second Time Bound promotion will be accorded after completion of 25 years of service, but in any case not earlier than three years from the date of according First Time Bound promotion.

2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as Steam Man in the Workcharge Establishment of the State before he was brought into the Permanent Establishment of the State where also he worried as Steam Man, but the dispute is since when he started discharging the duties of Steam Man. There cannot be any dispute, as it appears from Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, that originally the petitioner was accorded the status of Steam Man with effect from 2nd January, 1971, which was directed to be treated from 1st October, 1962 by the said Annexure. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that from 1st October, 1962, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Steam Man in the Workcharge Establishment but the said promotion was effective from 1st April, 1964. In such view of the matter, while the petitioner has been accorded First Time Bound promotion with effect from 1st April, 1981, the Second Time Bound promotion to the petitioner has been accorded with effect from 1st April, 1989. It does not appear from Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition that the promotion of the petitioner in the Workcharge Establishment to the post of Steam Man was to take effect from 1st April, 1964, instead the said Annexure made it absolutely clear that such promotion of the petitioner should be recognised with effect from 1st October, 1962.

3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner, as aforesaid, has been accorded First Time Bound promotion with effect from 1st April, 1981 and also the Second Time Bound promotion with effect from 1st April, 1989 but having regard to the fact that the petitioner completed 25 years of service in the post of Steam Man on 1st October, 1987, he is entitled to Second Time Bound promotion with effect from 1st October, 1987 and not from 1st April, 1989. In those circumstances, the decision to accord Second Time Bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1967 is quashed with a direction upon the State to accord Second Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1st October, 1962.

4. Let the consequential benefits pertaining to the aforesaid directions be given to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

5. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial