Judgment 1. Heard both the parties. 2. On 3rd March, 1960, petitioner joined the services of the State in the post of Fireman. At that stage, the scale of pay to which the Fireman was entitled to was Rs. 75-140. This scale was subsequently revised and stood increased to Rs. 115-225. On 4th August, 1976, the post of Fireman was abolished. After such abolition, on the same date the petitioner was adjusted in the post of Junior Instructor. At that time, post of Junior Instructor carried a scale of Rs. 115-225. Petitioner was, therefore, adjusted in the same scale of pay. This scale of pay was simultaneously altered to Rs. 340-490. Subsequently, the post of Junior Instructor and Senior Instructor were merged into the post of Instructor and accordingly, the petitioner became an Instructor. On 31st January, 1994, petitioner was given additional charge of Foreman which was a superior post but in the same department. The petitioner, however, was paid the salaries of Instructor. In terms of Service Record of the petitioner, he was to retire on 31st March, 1998. The petitioner, however, retired on 30th April, 1998. At the time of settlement of pensionary and retiral dues of the petitioner, it was decided that one months pension due to the petitioner would be deducted. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner is contending that in terms of 1981 policy of the Government, the petitioner was entitled two time bond promotions since, he worked for 25 years before 1st January, 1996 until when the said policy was in force. In addition to that, he is seeking salary at the rate at which salaries were payable to Foreman from 31st January, 1994 until the date of his retirement. The petitioner is also contending that he having been made to work until 30th April, 1998, even though he was to retire on 31st March, 1998, his pension could not be deducted as was done in the instant case. 3. I will answer the last question first. The fact remains that the date of superannuation of an employee is fixed on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in the Service Book. Such date of birth is recorded on the representation made by the employee concerned. The recording of such date of birth is also acknowledged in writing by the employee concerned by putting his signature on the Service Book. Such date of birth is recorded on the representation made by the employee concerned. The recording of such date of birth is also acknowledged in writing by the employee concerned by putting his signature on the Service Book. Therefore, unless there is a dispute as to the recording of the date of birth of the employee concerned in the Service Book, it must be deemed that on the representation of the employee his date of superannuation has been fixed and if the employee has worked beyond such date, he alone is to be blamed therefore. In such view of the matter, having regard to the fact that in terms of the Service Book of the petitioner, he was to retire on 31st March, 1998 but he worked till 30th April, 1998 and accordingly, the State has decided to deduct one months pension due to the petitioner is not interferable inasmuch as, in law, the petitioner is not entitled to the salary for one month which he worked extra. 4. There being no dispute that the petitioner was adjusted in the same scale of pay after the post of Fireman was abolished, in terms of the decision of the Government, it must be deemed that the petitioner was entitled to count his working in the post from the date he was initially appointed in the original post. In such view of the matter, the petitioner completed 10 years of service on 4th March, 1970 and 25 years of service on 4th March, 1985, The petitioner accordingly, became entitle to first time bond promotion on 1st April, 1981 i.e. the date when the said policy was introduced by the Government and the second time bond promotion with effect from 4th March, 1985. There is no just reason for not according those promotions. Probably, those were not accorded to the petitioner on a mistaken notion that the petitioner, upon abolition of the post of Fireman, was adjusted in a superior post. In such view of the matter, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to such promotions, as mentioned above, and the mistaken notion is now corrected by recording the fact that the petitioner was adjusted in a post which was carrying same salary and accordingly, had not been adjusted in a superior post. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was asked to discharge additional charge of Foreman. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was asked to discharge additional charge of Foreman. There is also no dispute that Instructor as well as the Foreman belonged to the same department. In terms of Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code and in particular, Sub-Ruie-A thereof, the petitioner became entitled to the highest pay to which he became entitle, if his appointment to one of the post stood alone. He, however, is not entitled to any further pay for he was also made to discharge the duties of instructor in addition to the duties of Foreman, inasmuch as the post of Instructor as well as Foreman, whose duties the petitioner was asked to discharge simultaneously, belonged to same establishment or office. 6. In those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider grant of first as well as second time bound promotions to the petitioner and also the difference pay due to Foreman and Instructor for the period 31st January, 1994 to 31st March, 1998 and also to readjust the pensionary and terminal dues of the petitioner on such promotions being accorded as quickly as possible but not later than three months from today. It is made clear that while the petitioner was entitled to the first and second time bond promotions, he was not entitled to the promotion to the post of Foreman for as yet no decision has been taken to promote the petitioner to the post of Foreman although for having had discharged duties of Foreman he became entitle to the salary of Foreman and accordingly, his pensionary/terminal dues shall be fixed 7. This disposes of the writ petition.