Judgment 1. Petitioner, a former employee of Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board has filed the present writ application to give him the benefit of second time bound promotion and pay scale with effect from 18.2.1997 in terms of a decision taken by Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 27.10.2004. 2. Petitioner superannuated in the year 2005 but before his superannuation even though a decision was taken by the respondents to grant him second time bound promotion after completion of 25 years of service on 18.2.1997, the said benefit has not been given to him. Petitioner has brought on record the two decisions dated 26.10.2004 taken by the Chief Executive Officer contained in Annexure-1 as well as its ratification and approval by the Establishment Committee on 27.10.2004 as is evident from Annexure-2. Petitioner has filed representation for implementation of grant of benefit to him since he was at the verge of retirement and when nothing came to be done he filed the present writ application. 3. Respondents in their counter affidavit though do not deny the fact that the Establishment Committee did take a decision to extend the benefit but the said decision was taken in ignorance of the requisite circulars and decision of the State Government. They have brought on record a notification of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar dated 8.2.1999 contained in Annexure-A. According to this decision, a conscious decision was taken that no benefit of second time bound promotion would be granted to an employee after 1.1.1996. This decision was taken in light of the recommendation of the Fitment Committee after coming of the 5th Pay Revision Committee. They have also brought on record a communication dated 30.5.2007 contained in Annexure-B. This communication had been made to the Industrial Development Commissioner, Industries Department, Government of Bihar by the present Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer has stated in the communication that in terms of the resolution of the Finance Department No. 660 (F/2) dated 8.2.1999 the petitioner was not entitled to claim second time bound promotion on or from 18.2.1997. It is an admitted position in paragraph 4 of the writ application that the claim is from a date later than 1.1.1996. The decision therefore to grant second time bound promotion by the then Executive Officer or the Establishment Committee is in breach of the Government resolution. 4. It is an admitted position in paragraph 4 of the writ application that the claim is from a date later than 1.1.1996. The decision therefore to grant second time bound promotion by the then Executive Officer or the Establishment Committee is in breach of the Government resolution. 4. Petitioner has categorically asserted that he has completed 25 years of service on 18.2.1997 and has claimed second time bound promotion because of completing 25 years of service. But since in the meanwhile, if the State Government on the recommendation of the Fitment Committee based on the new recommendation of the Pay Commission withdrew the benefit of time bound promotion from 1.1.1996 then there is actually no occasion for either the respondents to grant the said benefit to the petitioner on 18.2.1997 though a decision in his favour was taken on 27.10.2004. 5. If the eligibility of the petitioner would have accrued to him prior to 1.1.1996, the petitioner could have had a case for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to give the benefit to him. Since the eligibility of the petitioner accrued after the benefit of time bound promotion had been withdrawn, the petitioner has no case. 6. The writ application is dismissed.