JUDGMENT S.N. Hussain & Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner-appellant challenging order dated 03.05.2005 by which a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed C.W.J.C. No.14117 of 2001 filed by the writ petitioner-appellant. 2. The aforesaid writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.14117 of 2001 was filed by the writ petitioner-appellant challenging order of the authorities contained in letter dated 02.09.2000 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar adversely affecting the grant of Senior Selection Grade (Second Time Bound Promotion) to the petitioner and also praying for a direction to the respondents to grant Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade (Time Bound Promotions), including super time scale to the petitioner from respective due dates along with all consequential benefits of such promotion in accordance with Government Resolution No.10770F dated 30.12.1981. 3. The claim of petitioner was that since he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Assistant in the Patna High Court on 22.12.1960, he was entitled for time bound promotions after completion of 10 years and 25 years of service on 22.12.1970 and 22.12.1985 respectively as per the Government Resolution No.10770F dated 30.12.1981. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant stated that by order dated 14.09.1987 he was given First Time Bound Promotion to Junior Selection Grade with effect from 01.04.1987, whereafter vide order dated 02.11.1988 he was promoted as Selection Grade Assistant in the Senior Selection Grade with effect from 20.08.1987. The grievance of petitioner is that the said order dated 02.11.1988 was passed completely ignoring the representation of petitioner dated 19.07.1988 requesting the authorities to give him First Time Bound Promotion and Second Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 and 22.12.1985 respectively. However, the said representation of petitioner was rejected by the authorities on 22.12.1988. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant averred that in the mean time departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 16.09.1982 and order of punishment was passed against him by the High Court on 26.08.1983 finding the charges framed against him to have been proved and hence his three next increments were stopped and he was directed to be given no promotion for a period of three years. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant claimed that the period of three years was completed on 25.08.1986 and thus in the year 1981 when the petitioner became entitled to First Time Bound Promotion, no proceeding was pending against him and thereafter since 25.08.1986 he also became entitled for Second Time Bound Promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant asserted that on 16.07.1985 the Government took a decision to extend the benefits of time bound scale even to persons coming by way of merger and thereafter several persons were given time bound scale with effect from 01.04.1981 and hence there was no hindrance for the respondent-authorities to give the said time bound promotions to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.1088 of 1990 for being granted Senior Selection Grade since his juniors were given that promotion. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.1990 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority within a month which would be considered in accordance with law. In compliance of the said order of the High Court, petitioner filed his representation before the High Court on its administrative side but the same was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 16.01.1991. 7. Against the said order dated 16.01.1991 petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.763 of 1991. In the said writ petition an interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.1992 observing that the Court was surprised as to why the pendency of the application should stand in the way of consideration of the case of petitioner if he is otherwise entitled to such consideration. Hence the respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner also for promotion to the Senior Selection Grade. However, in the meantime on the direction of High Court, petitioner filed his petition for time bound promotion considering which petitioner was promoted as Section Officer on temporary basis and hence at the instance of petitioner C.W.J.C. No.763 of 1991 was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 03.05.1993. 8. However, in the meantime on the direction of High Court, petitioner filed his petition for time bound promotion considering which petitioner was promoted as Section Officer on temporary basis and hence at the instance of petitioner C.W.J.C. No.763 of 1991 was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 03.05.1993. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted that as per the time bound promotion scheme of 1981 the Law Department issued letter dated 17.04.1998 holding that the petitioner was entitled to First Time Bound Promotion on 01.04.1981 and thereafter for Second Time Bound Promotion the calculation has to be made with effect from 26.08.1986 when the period of his punishment ended. The same matter was reiterated by the Law Department in its letter dated 09.09.1999 finding the petitioner entitled to First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981. Subsequently letter dated 02.09.2000 was issued by the Law Department holding the petitioner entitled to First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 and to calculate Second Time Bound Promotion from 22.12.1988. This letter of the Law Department had been challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.14117 of 2001 out of which the instant Letters Patent Appeal has arisen. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant argued that the aforesaid facts were not properly considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petitioner’s writ petition by the impugned order dated 03.05.2005 and hence the writ petitioner was constrained to file the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the said order. 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Government Resolution which extended the provision of two time bound promotions to such employees also who were elevated to a higher pay scale by promotion, merger or even up-gradation. Thus, the cases of eligible Assistants in the Court for the First Time Bound Promotion (Junior Selection Grade) from 01.04.1981 was considered in the year 1985. As the petitioner was then serving penalties of three years bar in his promotion, so he was not given the First Time Bound Promotion from the due date i.e. 01.04.1981 as the period of punishment debarring him promotion for three years expired on 25.08.1986, but the period of punishment of stoppage of increments which actually fell due to him on 01.03.1984, 01.03.1985 and 01.03.1986 was over on 28.02.1987. Hence the petitioner became clear from all obstructions for grant of First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1987 and hence he was given the aforesaid promotion with effect from 01.04.1987 by office order dated 14.09.1987. He was also adjusted against the sanctioned post of Selection Grade Assistant with effect from 20.08.1987. In this connection he also relied upon Government Circular dated 16.07.1985 with respect to the date from which First and Second Time Bound Promotions can be affected from 1981. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of State of T.N. Vs. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and others, reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 273. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospective promotion which is impermissible under the Rules and it would be a premium on misconduct. Hence he submitted that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge was legal and proper requiring no interference. 12. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it appears to be admitted facts that the petitioner became entitled for First Time Bound Promotion on 01.04.1981 after completing more than 10 years of service as per the time bound promotion scheme of the Government. It is also not in dispute that on the said date i.e. 01.04.1981 no proceeding was pending against the petitioner as the proceeding in question was initiated against the petitioner on 16.09.1982 and culminated in the order of punishment dated 26.08.1983 by which promotion for three years was withheld i.e. up to 25.08.1986. In the said circumstances, if the petitioner could be deemed to be not entitled for promotion, it was only between 16.09.1982 till 25.08.1986. 13. In the said situation the petitioner was fully entitled for First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 and hence the authorities concerned were duty bound to give the said promotion to the petitioner from that date in which they had miserably failed. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by learned Single Judge. 14. 13. In the said situation the petitioner was fully entitled for First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 and hence the authorities concerned were duty bound to give the said promotion to the petitioner from that date in which they had miserably failed. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by learned Single Judge. 14. No doubt, since departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated on 16.09.1982 and culminated in order dated 26.08.1983 and the period of punishment having expired on 25.08.1986, the petitioner was not entitled to any further promotion including Second Time Bound Promotion from 16.09.1982 till 25.08.1986 and only excluding it the period for Second Time Bound Promotion had to be calculated. 15. In the said circumstances, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the impugned order of learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the authorities shall give First Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1981, whereas the punishment awarded in the departmental proceeding stopping promotion for three years is to be calculated for grant of Second Time Bound Promotion and only thereafter the petitioner has to be given the Second Time Bound Promotion. The respondent-authorities are directed to make a fresh calculation according to the aforesaid directions and make payment to the petitioner positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.