JUDGEMENT Ajay Kr.Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The notification dated 8th June,1996 by virtue of which the petitioner was granted senior selection grade scale of pay of Rs. 3,700-5,000/- from 1.4.1990, after he superannuated does not satisfy him at all. The notification in question is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and it contains names of 39 persons who have been given that promotion from the dates indicated against their names. 3. The prayer made in the present writ application by the petitioner is that he is entitled for first time bound promotion from a date prior to 1.4.90 after ten years of service and another after 25 years of service. 4. The question of shifting of the date and the benefit of promotion which has been prayed for seems to be misplaced in the light of the fact that the promotion granted to the petitioner seems to be based on his service record alongwith similarly situated persons. The 4th Pay Revision Committee in its recommendation made provision of time bound promotion. The recommendation was with regard to such employees who did not have avenue of promotion after entering the service. Every employee is expected to at least get two avenues of promotions and since there are certain posts which do not have such avenue, recommendation was made to grant first time bound promotion after ten years of service on the same post and second time bound promotion after 25 years of service. These promotions by no manner alter the post and the responsibility attached thereto but surely brings some cheer to the said employee by higher pay scale. 5. The claim of the petitioner i.e. the relief in question cannot be entertained on the ground that the time bound promotion is not a substitute for substantive promotion. It is not a substitute that till the employee gets regular promotion to the next higher post, he will be provided time bound promotion. In the present case it is not a case of the petitioner that he is on the same post which he joined, till his retirement on 31.1.1994. He entered in service as an Agricultural Inspector and later on was promoted on many a occasions ultimately retiring from the post of Project Officer. In the present case it is not a case of the petitioner that he is on the same post which he joined, till his retirement on 31.1.1994. He entered in service as an Agricultural Inspector and later on was promoted on many a occasions ultimately retiring from the post of Project Officer. If that be the position then the assertion of the petitioner that after having completed 10 years of service he should be granted time bound promotion of the first time and second time bound promotion after 25 years is misplaced since even the selection grade is linked with the same. 6. Obviously the petitioner has not understood the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee which was any way taken by the 5th Pay Revision Committee and was discontinued from 1.1.96. 7. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.