Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Order No. 142/2000-2001, communicated vide Memo No. 10 dated 5.1.2001 (Annexure 2) and the order, contained in Letter No. 507 dated 14th July, 2004, which is Annexure 6, and the validity of which has been challenged in I.A. No. 4052 of 2004. By the said two orders, the claim of the petitioner with respect to time bound promotions have been rejected. 2. It appears that earlier also the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 6421 of 2000 claiming time bound promotions pursuant to the Government decision dated 19.9.2000, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.7.2000 (Annexure 1) remitting the matter to the respondents with a direction to consider his case for time bound promotion (first and second), if otherwise eligible for the same. Thereafter his claim was considered and rejected vide aforementioned order, contained in Annexure 2. The petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 606 of 2001 for initiating contempt on the ground that the order rejecting the petitioners claim was issued beyond the time specified by this Court and, further, that the order was bad and illegal. The said M.J.C. petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.1.2004 (Annexure 3) with an observation that in case the petitioner is left with any grievance, he may seek his remedies in accordance with law. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Collector, vide Annexure 4, with his aforementioned grievance, which has been rejected vide Annexure 6. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, prayer made in I.A. No. 4052 of 2004 is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to assail the validity of Annexure 6 in addition to the other relief prayed for in the writ petition. 4. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1949 and finally superannuated on 31.5.1988. Meanwhile, the provision relating to grant of two time bound promotions came in December, 1981; one after completion of ten years of service or with effect from 1.4.1981, whichever is earlier, and second after completion of 25 years of service, subject to fulfilment of other conditions required for grant of regular promotion. 5. Meanwhile, the provision relating to grant of two time bound promotions came in December, 1981; one after completion of ten years of service or with effect from 1.4.1981, whichever is earlier, and second after completion of 25 years of service, subject to fulfilment of other conditions required for grant of regular promotion. 5. The question regarding grant of time bound promotions under the aforementioned scheme came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (F.B.), the judgment of which is reported in 2000(4) PUR 262. 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner became eligible for grant of first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981. However, initially he contended that as the petitioner under the earlier rule was entitled for one promotion, he is not entitled to get the benefit of second time bound promotion. However, after going through paragraph 16 of the aforementioned Full Bench decision, he fairly submitted that since the petitioner had completed the required Kalawadhi after the effective date of first time bound promotion before his retirement, he cannot be denied of the benefit ot second time bound promotion. 7. This Court, thus, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, finds it difficult to sustain the impugned orders, contained in Annexures 2 and 6, and they are, accordingly quashed. 8. The writ petition is, thus, allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of two time bound promotions and issue necessary order/notification in that regard with all consequential benefits, including financial benefits, from due date, within two weeks.