JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of letter No. 663 dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-6) by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected regarding consideration for giving benefits of first and second Time Bond Promotions as well as Senior Selection Grade. Further prayer has been made to grant the benefits of first and second Time Bond Promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1981 and 13.05.1986 respectively and also the benefits of Senior Selection Grade to the petitioner. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Salesman on 12.05.1961. Subsequently, he was promoted in the cadre of Manager and while the petitioner was working as In charge Manager, he retired on 30.04.2001 and accordingly, the petitioner has been relieved and another In charge Manager took charge as will be evident from the letter dated 18.04.2001. Thereafter, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner for 1st and 2nd Time Bond Promotions vide its letter dated 15.02.2001 but the same has not been granted to him till date. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 2506 of 2004 for payment of retiral benefits as well as that of 1st and 2nd Time Bond Promotions w.e.f. 01.04.1981 and 13.05.1986 respectively and also for the benefits of Senior Selection Grade to the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2014 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner and make all the payments within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. When the orders of the Court were not complied the petitioner also filed a contempt case being Cont. (C) Case No. 162 of 2005 and the same was also disposed of with an observation that, “if the petitioner has still any grievances regarding adjustment or otherwise, he may approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances.” 5. In view of the observations made in the contempt application, the petitioner filed a representation before the authorities vide representation dated 02.08.2007. The respondents authorities rejected the case of the petitioner vide letter No. 663 dated 30.10.2007 and hence, the present writ application has been preferred challenging the said order of rejection. 6. Mr. In view of the observations made in the contempt application, the petitioner filed a representation before the authorities vide representation dated 02.08.2007. The respondents authorities rejected the case of the petitioner vide letter No. 663 dated 30.10.2007 and hence, the present writ application has been preferred challenging the said order of rejection. 6. Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons for rejection of the representation of the petitioner, which has been assigned in the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. The only reason which has been assigned in the impugned order is that because of the financial crunch which the respondents were facing, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for payment of benefits of 1st and 2nd Time Bond Promotions. Learned counsel submits that the respondents illegally and arbitrarily, inspite of the earlier orders of this Court, have not considered the case of the petitioner and have rejected the same. 7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand, Mr. Sunil Singh submits that in the counter-affidavit itself it has been explained that because of the financial crunch, the respondent-Khadi Board was not in a position to give the benefits of Time Bond Promotions and as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, justify the impugned order. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs reconsideration. The contention of the learned counsel and the averments made in the counter-affidavit as also the reasons assigned in the impugned order is not acceptable to this Court. May be at that point of time, the Khadi Board was not in a position to give the benefits of Time Bond Promotions because of its financial crunch but as on date, the Khadi Board is number one in the entire country and it is not facing any financial crunch and hence, I find no occasion why the benefits of Time Bond Promotions, which accrued to the petitioner, should not be given to him by the respondent-authorities. 9. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, I hereby direct the respondent No. 4, District Officer, Khadi Gramodhyog Board, Ranchi to reconsider the case of the petitioner for payment of benefits as accrued because of the Time Bond Promotions and if the petitioner is found fit for such promotions, the benefits of promotions may be extended to him within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Needless to say that as the petitioner has already retired and the respondent-authorities have already paid his retiral benefits, the benefit of Time Bond Promotions should be extended to him as early as possible, within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Resultantly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Before parting with this case, I must record that I got able assistance from Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, though they are not appearing for the respondent-Khadi Board.