Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The original petitioner has been substituted by his legal heirs during the pendency of the writ application who are prosecuting the case. 3. The petitioner retired as a clerk i.e. Class-III employee from Chaibasa Civil Court on 31.07.1997. He has made a prayer for grant of second time bound promotion in Senior Selection Grade Pay Scale with effect from 16.06.1990 on completion of 25 years of service. A prayer was also made to revise the pay scale of the petitioner in pursuance of the Circular dated 19.12.1987 (Annexure-5) and for payment of difference of salary and pensionary benefits. 4. The petitioner entered into service in 1965 and was granted First Time Bound Promotion by order dated 12.02.2001 (Annexure-7) with effect from 01.04.1981. However, he had not been granted Second Time Bound Promotion on completion of 25 years of service and no exemption from passing of departmental exam was granted by the competent authority on attaining 50 years of age by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in view of the specific communication of the Patna High Court, as contained in letter dated 27.07.1996 (Annexure-3), requirement of passing of departmental exam was a mandatory requirement in terms of rule 62 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III & Class-IV) Rules, 1992 and not for grant of Time Bound Promotion. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for Time Bound Promotion. Moreover, when no departmental exams were held since 1972-73 in his service career, he cannot be made to suffer on that account. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Ramjee Prasad Singh vs. State & ors. [1999(3) PLJR 648] and in the case of Lala Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2000 (1) PLJR 228 ] in support of his contentions. 5. Respondent State and the High Court of Jharkhand are represented through their counsel. The claim of the petitioner have been resisted by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 through their counter affidavit with the plea that in terms of department resolution no. 10770/Patna dated 30.12.1981, Time Bound Promotion can be granted to a person who has not been given substantive promotion during his service career. The Circular itself stipulates that the rules of procedure meant for usual promotion should be followed in case of Time Bound Promotion. 10770/Patna dated 30.12.1981, Time Bound Promotion can be granted to a person who has not been given substantive promotion during his service career. The Circular itself stipulates that the rules of procedure meant for usual promotion should be followed in case of Time Bound Promotion. It is further stated that the letter dated 27.7.1996 (Annexure-3), relied by the petitioner, did not stipulate that one is not required to pass departmental exam for grant of Second Time Bound Promotion, it rather indicates that provision of Rule 62 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III & Class-IV) Rules, 1992 could be applicable in the case of regular promotion. The claim of the petitioner for Second Time Bound Promotion is therefore not sustainable in law. 6. Counsel for the respondent State has also pointed out that by office order no. 8/98 dated 09.02.1998 (Annexure-2), case of the petitioner was specifically rejected after consideration by the District and Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the same ground that he has not passed the departmental exam. It is further submitted that the plea of the petitioner that juniors to him have been granted Second Time Bound Promotion by the same order, may not come to his aid in view of the fact that the juniors must have passed the departmental exam while the petitioner and others who were denied Second Time Bound Promotion, have not passed the departmental exam. The said order is not under challenge in the present writ application either. Counsel for the respondent State also refers to a Finance Department Resolution dated 05.05.1995 bearing letter no. 3/M 2-57/95/2162 on the issue that even for grant of Second Time Bound Promotion, condition prescribed under the format includes the condition that a person should be otherwise eligible for regular promotion. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. In the background of rival pleas which have been noticed herein-above, in the first place, on proposition of law, it is to be observed that any benefit of financial up-gradation or Time Bound Promotion or Selection Grade to an employee of the State Government or any State instrumentalities is to be guided by the Rules or Circular under which such benefits are to be extended. No direction can be issued in derogation of the provisions of the scheme. No direction can be issued in derogation of the provisions of the scheme. This view has been upheld recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 30.07.2014 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5157 of 2009 in the case of Secretary, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & others versus Grade-I DASS Officers Association & others It is not in dispute that the Circular of 1981 stipulates that for grant of Time Bound Promotion, usual procedure as required for regular promotion is to be followed. Passing of departmental exam is one of the essential requirements under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme as also under the ACP and MACP Scheme which have been implemented from time to time by the Central Government and the State Government upon the recommendations of Pay Revision Committee. Rule 62 of 1992 Rules would also not come to the aid of the petitioner, as by the simple reading of the said rule, it is apparent that before a clerk is to be promoted to the Junior Selection Grade, he will have to pass the exam of prescribed rules such as Civil Code, Criminal Code, Accountancy, knowledge of drafting, correspondence, order sheet, practice and procedure. Petitioner has not been granted exemption from passing departmental exam by the competent authority which again is mandatory requirement for being considered for grant of any Time Bound Promotion after crossing the age of 50 years. In view of the aforesaid legal position, judgments relied upon by the petitioner also do not come to his aid. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner however at the end submits that even admissible pensionary dues have not been paid to the dependent of the deceased. 9. However, in the absence of any materials on record which have also been allowed to be traversed by the respondents, no specific direction can be issued on such a plea. It is however only observed that the petitioners may have the liberty to approach the competent authority for release of admissible post retirement dues. However, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.