JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dr. H. Waris, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned G.A.-I for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 31.01.2011 whereby the claim of the petitioner for providing second time bound promotion has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Head Pundit in Duli Board Middle School, Singhbhum by order dated 19.06.1963 and the petitioner joined the post on 20.06.1963. Thereafter, the petitioner passed the matriculation examination on 22.08.1963 and Teachers’ Training Examination on 20.08.1972. First time bound promotion was given to him w.e.f. 02.08.1982. Mr. Waris further submits that the petitioner is entitled for second time bound promotion w.e.f. 20.06.1988 taking into account the 25 years of service. The petitioner earlier move before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2784 of 2003 for the same relief, which was disposed of on 02.09.2009 and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation before the respondents authorities and the authorities have been directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation. Pursuant to that the petitioner approached respondent no. 2, who in turn passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner by order dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Mr. Waris draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order and submits that in the impugned order itself depicted in view of the resolution no. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 that the employee will get first time bound promotion by the end of ten years of service and the second time bound promotion by the end of 25 years of service. He further submits that the impugned order states that the first time bound promotion was given to the petitioner on 02.08.1982 he further submits that in view of the observation made in the impugned order and also the prayer of the petitioner should be considered as he had completed his 25 years of service before the 1st March, 1989 i.e on 20.06.1988. 4. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents relying of the circular dated 30.12.1981 particularly on 11(vii) which reads as under: “Since the aforesaid scheme is meant as an anti–stagnation measure, it should be applicable in case of only such employees who have not been able to get the first or the second promotion, as the case may be. In other words, the benefit of the time bound system should be extended to those who are stagnating in the same pay scale to which they were appointed or its corresponding revised pays scale. The benefit should not be made applicable to such employees who, after once joining of Government service have, for any, reason, been elevated to a higher pay scale, by promotion, merger or even upgradation. This should require issue to specific orders in case of every employee which should obviously by done only after a careful examination of his service records.” submits that in view of those persons who has already provided one time bound promotion will not be entitled for the second time bound promotion. On perusal of the provision made under Rule 11(vii) it transpires that after once joining the Government service for any reasons being elevated to the higher pay scale by promotion by merger even by upgradation then the time bound promotion will not be given to those persons. The provision said about the promotion on substantive posts and the time bound promotion are being provided to the employees only taking into account the stagnation in their career. The circular relied by the State is not help the State. The respondent State submits that promotion on substantive posts by circular dated 10770 dated 30.12.1981 has already been discussed in the impugned order. 5. As a cumulative effect of the above facts, there is no reason as to why the petitioner will not be provided second time promotion when he has already completed his 25 years of service on 20.06.1988. There is discussion in circular dated 30.12.1981 and it is also stated that the prior to 28th February 1989 if the person is entitled for the benefits that will be provided. The petitioner became entitled w.e.f. 20.06.1988. In view of this, the impugned order dated 31.01.2011 cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 6. There is discussion in circular dated 30.12.1981 and it is also stated that the prior to 28th February 1989 if the person is entitled for the benefits that will be provided. The petitioner became entitled w.e.f. 20.06.1988. In view of this, the impugned order dated 31.01.2011 cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed the respondents are directed to calculate second time bound promotion to the petitioner and release the amount as early as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks ‘from the date of production of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.