R.S. Garg, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner retired as an accounts clerk from the Minor Irrigation Department. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined his services on 24.1.1962. During his tenure, he was not given any promotion and he was allowed to retire on 13.11.1996. Vide Annexure-3 letter dated 3.4.1998 contained in memo No. 571 issued by the office of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna, it was observed that he would be entitled to first time-bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 and second time-bound promotion with effect from 24.1.1987. According to the petitioner, the respondents are obliged to re-calculate everything and fix him in proper pay-scale and make the payment of the pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with those two time-bound promotions.
3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that a clerk in the accounts section was obliged to pass the accounts examination and as the petitioner did not pass the accounts examination he was not entitled to second time-bound promotion. They have relied upon the circular dated 12.8.1992 (Annexure-K to the counter affidavit). They have also relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 2000 4 PLJR 263.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that in the said Full Bench judgment the effect of the circular dated 12.8.1992 was not taken into consideration and as the circular dated 12.8.1992 has charged the entire scenario and the said circular has been considered by a Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Brajnand Ojha v. The Bihar State Housing Board and Ors.. 2003 (4) PLRJ 443, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of second time-bound promotion.
5. In the matter of Maheshwar Prasad Singh, this Court had observed that in accordance with the provisions of law and different circulars including the amendment the clerks of the Muffasil Offices could not be promoted to the selection grade post without passing final examination in Accounts except during the period between 1.5.1980 and 29.3.1982. After going through the entire judgment of the Full Bench, I am unable to find even a single word that the circular dated 12.8.1992 had been taken into consideration. The circular dated 12.8.1992 says that the clerks who got the promotion prior to 1.9.1983 could not be reverted back because they did not pass the accounts examination. It has been further observed in the circular that the first promotion which could be given to them only after passing the examination has been given in their favour without passing the examinations prior to 1.9.1983, therefore, they would be entitled-to further promotion with the said relaxation provided they fulfill the other conditions.
6. The respondents have said that the said circular was clarified by later circular dated 21.11.2000 (24.12.2000). I have gone through the said circular also. The said circular refers to the contents of the circular No. 4178, dated 12.8.1992 . and thereafter observes that to resolve the problem and in accordance with the direction issued by the High Court in CWJC No. 4167 of 1998 a clarificatory order was being issued. The clarification is that the persons who were entitled to first time-bound promotion prior to 1.9.1983 and even if their orders of first time-bound promotion had been issued on a later date without passing the departmental examination, would be entitled to further promotional avenues provided they fulfill the other conditions. This circular in fact helps and assists the cause of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the State repeatedly submitted that the first time-bound promotion if was due prior to 1.9.1983 and if the same had been given to an incumbent then such incumbent would not be entitled to second time-bound promotion unless he passes the accounts examination because passing of the accounts examination is one of the conditions precedent for promotion. The argument runs contrary to the circular dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure-L). The circular nowhere says that before getting the benefits of the second-time bound promotion the incumbent has to pass the accounts examination. In fact the circular says that a person who was entitled to first time-bound promotion prior to 1.9.1983 and an order of promotion has been passed in his favour even on a subsequent date then such a person would be entitled to further promotion without passing the departmental examination.
8. The question had been considered by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Brajnano Ojha (supra). It has been observed in the said judgment that certain amendments were made in the circular dated 12.8.1992 and thereafter the said amendments were withdrawn and circular No. 4178 dated 12.8.1992 was made applicable to every employee.
9. The circular dated 12.8.1992 is clarified by a clarificatory letter contained in memo No. 8G01 dated 21.11.2000, I must observe that the petitioner who had received the benefit of the first time-bound promotion without passing the accounts examination would be entitled to the benefits of the second time-bound promotion in the light of those circulars of the State Government. The respondents are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in fixing his salary and pay by not taking into consideration the effect of the second time-bound promotion.
10. The petition is allowed.
11. The respondents are hereby directed to re-consider the entire case of the petitioner, re-fix his pay-scale/salary, decide the question that on the date of his retirement what would have been his final salary and on that basis all other benefits to which he is entitled would be decided.
The petitioner submits that his TA bills have not been cleared and part of the GPF amount has also not been paid to him. Let the petitioner submit his detailed claim before the respondents along with a copy of this order. Within a period of two months from the date of submission of a copy of this order along with the detailed claim of the petitioner, the respondents authorities would be obliged to decide the matter afresh and start making payments in accordance with the claim of the petitioner as found by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the Accountant General submits that there would be no delay on the part of the office of the Accountant General after receiving the instruction/papers from the Government. He assured that within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the recommendations/papers the pension papers would be cleared and necessary authorisation slip would be issued.
