Judgment:
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. In both these writ petitions, petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 17.5.2003 (Annexure-5) and 12.6.2004 (Annexure-1) respectively by which they have been granted afresh first time bound promotion with effect from 27.3.1987 in partial modification of previous orders and consequential orders directing for refixation of their pay and for recovery of the alleged excess payment received by virtue of the time bound promotion granted to them earlier.
2. Petitioners of CWJC No. 1009 of 2005 were initially appointed as work charge employee on 30.12.1970, 31.5.1975, 31.7.1974 and 6.11.1972 respectively and were made regular on 1.4.1977, 22.10.1984, 22.10.1984 and 1.4.1977 respectively, Petitioner of CWJC No. 774 of 2005 was initially appointed as work charge employee on 1.4.1973 and was made regular on 25.1.1979. The scheme for time bound promotion was introduced vide Government resolution dated 31.12.1981 for only regular employes, who were stagnating and did not get any promotion till 1.4.1981. As per Government decision contained in Finance department resolution No. 1503 dated 27.3.1987, the services rendered as work charge employee is to be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound promotion. As such, the petitioners were granted first time bound promotion after completion of ten years of service by counting the period of service rendered by them as work charge employee on 1.4.1981, 1.1.1986, 3.8.1984 and 1.11.1982 respectively, but, they were given monetary benefits with effect from 27.3.1987 and not of the earlier period. The State Government vide its memo No. 3683 dated 17.5.2003 (Annexure-5) clarified Finance Department's resolution No. 1503 dated 27.3.1987 and a decision has been taken that time bound promotion will be given to regular employees of work charge establishment with effect from 27.3.1987 and thereafter. Accordingly, vide Annexure-7 series petitioners have been granted afresh first time bound promotion with effect from 27.3.1987 in partial modification of previous orders and consequential orders have been passed directing of refixation of their pay and for recovery of the alleged excess payment received by them by virtue of the earlier time bound promotion. Petitioner of CWJC No. 774 of 2005 was granted first time bound promotion on 25.1.1989. Being aggrieved with the same he filed representation (Annexure- 3) for correction of the date of time bound promotion as 1.4.1983 because he was initially appointed in work charge establishment on 1.4.1973. Vide Annexure-1 the date of his time bound promotion has been modified from 25.1.1989 to 27.3.1987.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that instead of making payment to the petitioners arrears of salary from the date they have been granted first time bound promotion, the Respondent State has come out with an order dated 17.5.2003 (Annexure-5) by which it has been decided that the work charge employees taken into regular establishment be given time bound promotion on 27.3.1987 and thereafter, which is bad in law and contrary to the decision of this Court. He further submitted that the right accrued to the petitioners to get arrears of salary from the date they have been granted first time bound promotion cannot be taken away by Finance Department's resolution dated 17.5.2003 and subsequent letters passed therefrom. In support of this, learned counsel relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1998(1) PLJR 862.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur (Respondent No. 5) in CWJC No. 1009 of 2005 and counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondents 2 to 8 has been filed in CWJC No. 774 of 2005.
5. Learned JC to SC III has submitted that the time bound promotion granted to the petitioners can be revised by the Government any time, if it is not in accordance with the Rule. He further submitted that prior to issuance of Finance Department resolution dated 27.3.1987 no time bound promotion was provided for the employees working in work charge establishment, hence, the State Government vide memo dated 17.5.2003 revised all previous orders of time bound promotion and decided to grant time bound promotion with effect from 27.3.1987 and thereafter. Since the petitioners have been granted promotion with effect from 27.3.1987, they are not entitled to promotional benefits including financial benefits prior to 27.3.1987,
6. I failed to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the State. It is true that the Government can revise its order any time if it is not in accordance with the Rule, but, in the present case, Annexure-5 of CWJC No. 1009 of 2005, in my opinion, cannot be given effect retrospectively. The right accrued to an employee cannot be taken away by issuing an order. Hence, the order dated 17.5.2003 contained in Annexure-5 of CWJC No. 1009 of 2005 and consequential orders directing for refixation of their pay and for recovery of alleged excess payment received by virtue of time bound promotion granted to them earlier, contained in Annexure-6, 7 series and 8 series, are bad in law and are fit to be quashed.
7. The provision for counting the services rendered as work charge employee for the purpose of grant of time bound promotion was introduced by Government resolution No. 1503 dated 27.3.1987 and it has been made clear in that resolution that arrears of salary will be paid only with effect from 27.3.1987 and not of the earlier period. Hence the claim of the petitioners for arrears of salary from the date they have been granted first time bound promotion earlier is not tenable in law. I failed to appreciate as to how the orders of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey v. State of Bihar, (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of any help to him. In the aforesaid case, the Court proceeded on general principle that once promotion is granted from retrospective date, the incumbent is entitled to arrears of salary from such retrospective dates. In my opinion, the said principle cannot be applied in the present case. Earlier there was no provision to grant time bound promotion to the work charge employees. The Government for the first time vide its resolution dated 27th March, 1987 decided that once work charge employee is taken in the regular establishment, the period rendered by such employee in the work charge establishment be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for grant of time bound promotion with a rider that no arrears of salary will be paid on such time bound promotion. This being the policy decision of the State Government, I do not find any error in the same. The State Government is quite competent to take such policy decision without infringing the fundamental right:
8. Under the aforementioned circumstances, the order dated 17.5.2003, contained in Annexure 5 and its consequential orders of CWJC No. 1009 of 2005 are quashed. However, the petitioners will not be entitled for arrears of salary prior to 27.3.1987. Both these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.