Order I. A. No. 2284 of 2011 By Court - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the application. No counter affidavit has been filed against the present Interlocutory application till date. The petitioner by way of this application seeks permission to amend the writ petition by adding Para 'C' of the Interlocutory application in Para 1 of the writ petition. Considering the averments made in the application and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out necessary amendment in the writ petition during the course of the day. Accordingly, I. A. No. 2284 of 2011 is allowed and stands disposed of. W.P. (S) No. 3817 of 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the papers. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the office order, dated 05.03.2003, issued by the Respondents and further prayed for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondent authority to give similar benefit of time bound promotion to the writ petitioner as given to the other similarly situated persons vide order dated 16.10.2004 and pay monetary benefit after allowing the same benefit to the petitioner. 3. On perusal of the papers, it transpires that the petitioner is claiming benefit under Memo No. 1503, dated-27.03.1987 (Annexure-2). The case of the petitioner is that though he was appointed on 22.04.1968, the Respondents-authorities have not taken into account the period of service rendered as a work charge employee for the purposes of extending benefit of A.C.P. as well as time bound promotion and consequential pensionary benefits. 4. In support of his say, the petitioner has annexed the Policy decision, dated 27th March, 1987 of the State Government vide Annexure-2, and also other documents to show that similarly situated employees have been extended these benefits vide Office order No. 56, dated 16th October, 2004 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon Rules 56 and 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules in support of his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the compendium of Circular, which is Circular No. 3/M-2-5,1/1999, 7373, dated 18th October, 2000, which is in respect of time bound promotion admissible prior to 31st December, 1995. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the compendium of Circular, which is Circular No. 3/M-2-5,1/1999, 7373, dated 18th October, 2000, which is in respect of time bound promotion admissible prior to 31st December, 1995. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the decision in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & Another-versus-The State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2005 (3) J.L.J.R. 38 . 6. The Respondents-authorities have filed their counter affidavit and opposed this petition. 7. On perusal of the policy decision, which is produced vide Annexure-2 and the other circulars, Policy decision and the judgment mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the benefit is already extended to other similarly situated employees by computing the period of work charge for the purpose of granting benefit of A.C.P. and the time bound promotion and other pensionary benefits. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the Respondents-authorities in terms of the Policy decision, dated 27.03.1987 and the position prevailing under the relevant Rules and also keeping in mind, the ratio laid down in the judgment in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & Another (Supra). 8. Under the circumstances, the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation to the Respondents-authorities within two weeks from the date of this order and upon receipt of the said representation, the Respondents-authorities shall decide the same within two months thereafter. If the representation of the petitioner is not decided in favour of the petitioner, then in that case, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the said decision before this Court. It is further clarified that if the representation of the petitioner will be decided in favour of the petitioner, the consequential benefits thereof will be extended to him by the Respondents-State authorities without any further delay. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.