Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, counsel for the respondent. 2. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellants is with regard to grant of first time bound promotion to the present respondent/ writ petitioner from the year 1985. According to the counsel for the appellants, due to financial constraints the Bank has not granted the monetary benefit of first time bound promotion to any of its employees from the year 1985 but the same has been granted from 1.1.1989. 3. We find it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellants. The appellant Bank has made the provision for grant of first time bound promotion after ten years of service and second time bound promotion after completing 25 years of service is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner/present respondent was appointed as a Field Officer (erstwhile known as Supervisor) in the year 1972. Thus, it is not disputed that in the year 1982, the writ petitioner completed ten years of service. As a matter of fact, the stand of the present appellant before the Single Judge, in opposition to the writ petition, was that the petitioner was not given first time bound promotion on completion often years of service as the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. It was not their case before the Single Judge that due to financial constraints the Bank has not given the first time bound promotion to any of its employees on completion often years of service. Annexure-1 that has been annexed with the writ petition negates the stand of the Bank that first time bound promotion was not given to any of its employees. Annexure-1 shows that more than 20 employees were given first time bound promotion in the year 1982 on completion of ten years of service. The Single Judge instead of giving benefit of first time bound promotion to the petitioner from the year 1982, has given him benefit from the year 1985 because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Because of some minor punishment accorded to the writ petitioner the Single Judge held that on completion of three years or expiry of three years, the punishment order has lost its efficacy. 4. We find no reason to take a different view. Because of some minor punishment accorded to the writ petitioner the Single Judge held that on completion of three years or expiry of three years, the punishment order has lost its efficacy. 4. We find no reason to take a different view. The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed in limine. 5. In view of the discussion made above, it is not necessary to pass any separate order on interlocutory applications of limitation and stay. The same are also disposed of accordingly.