JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 27.03.2004, whereby representation pertaining to claim of the petitioner for differences of pay from October, 1985 to October, 2001 along with statutory interest and differences of pay for the period January, 1971 to March 1973 has been rejected and further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release the arrears of revised salary from 22.10.1985 to 31.10.2001 and also make payment of dues on account of difference of pay-scale for the period 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973; as also make payment accrued on account of benefit of time bound promotion w.e.f. 22.10.1985 till 26.12.2001 and to quash office order dated 12.02.2015 whereby respondent no. 4 denied to extend such benefit. 2. The factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ application is that petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 03.03.1966 in Middle School, Uchri, Mandar, which was later on taken over by Government w.e.f. 01.01.1971 and since then the petitioner became a full-fledged government employee and retired on 31.01.2002 from Middle School, Murma, Ranchi. It has further been averred that the State Government vide letter dated 04.06.1973 revised the pay-scale of teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1971 and the arrears of pay was directed to be deposited in their respective Provident Fund Account, but, even after retirement of the petitioner said amount has not been paid to the petitioner. It has further been averred that though the petitioner was granted Time Bound Promotion w.e.f. 22.10.1985 vide memo dated 26.12.2001 and even respondent no. 4-D.S.E., Ranchi allotted the required fund in favour of petitioner, but, when the same amount was not paid; petitioner preferred representation/details and statement, as required before respondent no. 5 but it did not evoke any response. Hence, the petitioner left with no option but to knock the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 349 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2004 with direction to concerned respondent to pass appropriate order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 31.01.2004 before respondent no. 4-D.S.E., Ranchi, who upon consideration of facts available on record passed order dated 27.03.2004, which is impugned in this case. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 31.01.2004 before respondent no. 4-D.S.E., Ranchi, who upon consideration of facts available on record passed order dated 27.03.2004, which is impugned in this case. It has further been averred that petitioner was granted benefit of 1st time bound promotion vide office order dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f. 22.10.1985 but on specific query made by this Court during pendency of this writ application, the respondents by way of filing supplementary counter affidavit asserted that vide office order dated 12.02.2015 office order dated 26.12.2001 granting time bound promotion has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted Matric trained scale vide memo dated 11.08.1973 w.e.f. 01.04.1970; I.A. trained scale vide memo dated 17.08.1973 w.e.f. 01.09.1973 and B.A. trained scale vide memo dated 20.11.1984 w.e.f. 22.10.1975 against vacancy prior to year 1975, as evident from Annexure 25 and 26 to the rejoinder affidavit. It has further been submitted that petitioner remained in the same pay-scale of Graduate trained scale for 10 years as such he was granted 1st time bound promotion vide memo dated 26.12.2001 (after retirement) w.e.f. 22.10.1985 that is the date on which the petitioner completed 10 years of his service in B.A trained scale; hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in granting 1st time bound promotion vide memo dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f. 22.10.1985. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a circular dated 15.03.1988 of Education Department, Govt. of Bihar in relation to grant of time bound promotion to an employee who continuously worked for 10 years on same post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that government in the financial year 2001-02 allotted fund to the respondent no. 4-D.S.E., Ranchi, who in turn sub-allotted the fund in favour of petitioner for making payment of difference of salary for the period October, 1985 to October, 2001, but, even then also payment was not made. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that B.A. trained scale granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 20.11.1984 as also 1st time bound promotion granted vide memo dated 26.12.2001 has never been cancelled and only when the petitioner approached the respondent no. 4 by submitting representation, his claim was arbitrarily denied. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that B.A. trained scale granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 20.11.1984 as also 1st time bound promotion granted vide memo dated 26.12.2001 has never been cancelled and only when the petitioner approached the respondent no. 4 by submitting representation, his claim was arbitrarily denied. 4. So far difference of pay for the period 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973 is concerned that has been paid to the petitioner during pendency of the writ application vide memo dated 08.10.2013. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards impugned order dated 27.03.2004 wherein it has been averred that payment of difference has been made. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was I.A untrained and after passing teachers’ Training Examination, he was granted Matric Trained Scale on 11.08.1973, hence, it is established fact that his initial appointment was in Matric Trained Scale. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted I.A. trained scale vide memo dated 17.08.1973 and B.A. trained scale vide memo dated 20.11.1984 w.e.f. 22.10.1975. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that scale granted in selection grade/B.A. and B.Sc/I.A. and I.Sc trained and its shifting with retrospective effect, which was sanctioned between the period 01.04.1984 to 30.05.1985 was cancelled vide memo dated 19.04.1986, as per order dated 08.06.1985 of the then Director, Primary Education; hence, the B.A. Trained scale granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 20.11.1984 stood automatically cancelled after enforcement of memo dated 19.04.1986. But, the petitioner managed to get 1st time bound promotion vide memo dated 26.12.2001 with retrospective effect, to which, he is not entitled. Hence, after coming to the knowledge of cancellation order, as stated above, the payment order which was issued to the respondent no. 5-Headmaster, Middle School, Murma, was stopped. Learned counsel for the respondents-State further referred to resolution dated 30.12.1981 issued by the Finance Department, in which, it has specifically been mentioned that State Government employees/teachers, who have not been granted the regular promotion i.e.. Matric trained scale to Inter trained scale or Inter trained scale to graduate trained scale, can only be entitled to grant of time bound of promotion. Matric trained scale to Inter trained scale or Inter trained scale to graduate trained scale, can only be entitled to grant of time bound of promotion. In the said resolution, it has further been ordered that the benefits of time bound promotion can be granted up-to the period 31.12.1985 in the original/initial appointment cadre only meaning thereby, taking the case of petitioner, as he was initially appointed in Matric trained scale/cadre, he can be given 1st time bound promotion in Matric trained junior selection grade scale and 2nd time bound promotion in Matric trained senior selection grade. Hence, there is no illegality in impugned orders dated 27.03.2004 and 12.02.2015, which need no interference by this Court. 6. From the pleadings available on record, the petitioner has been paid the difference of salary for the period 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973 during pendency of the writ application vide memo dated 08.10.2013, hence no order needs to be passed on this count. 7. So far adjudication of claim of the petitioner for difference of pay from October, 1985 to October, 2001 accrued on account of benefit of time bound promotion granted vide memo dated 26.12.2001, after retirement of the petitioner, is concerned; admittedly at the time of initial appointment i.e. after taking over of the school, the petitioner had qualification of I.A untrained hence Matric trained scale was given to him vide memo dated 11.08.1973 w.e.f. 01.04.1970; and only after acquisition of teachers’ training certificate he was granted I.A. trained vide memo dated 17.08.1973 w.e.f. 01.09.1973 and thereafter on acquiring requisite qualification he was granted B.A trained scale vide memo dated 20.11.1984 w.e.f. 22.10.1975. But, from plain reading of memo dated 19.04.1986, it appears that scale granted in selection grade/B.A & B.Sc/I.A. & I. Sc. Trained and its shifting with retrospective effect, which was sanctioned between 01.04.1984 to 30.05.1985 was cancelled; hence the scale granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 22.11.1984 stood automatically cancelled and admittedly at no point of time, it was challenged; hence it remained in-tact. However, while granting 1st time bound promotion vide memo dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f. 22.10.1985; this fact was not taken care of resulting into multiplicity of litigation. There is no denial of the fact that as per circular dated 15.03.1988 of Education Department, Govt. However, while granting 1st time bound promotion vide memo dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f. 22.10.1985; this fact was not taken care of resulting into multiplicity of litigation. There is no denial of the fact that as per circular dated 15.03.1988 of Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, employee who continuously worked for 10 years on same post is entitled to get time bound promotion, but, when his B.A trained scale was cancelled then it is of no help to the petitioner. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and taking into consideration of the rules/circulars, the impugned orders dated 27.03.2004 and 12.02.2015 need no interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.