Bihar must consider retired employee’s time-bound promotion claim without treating the accounts exam as mandatory, Patna High Court says

The petitioner retired as an Assistant Clerk on 31 July 1997 after 33 years of service.

He alleged that he had received neither promotion nor first and second time-bound promotion because he had not passed the accounts examination.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Kamlanand Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2025 (2) PLJR 623, he sought consideration of his claim, contending that the accounts examination was not a prerequisite for time-bound promotion.

The State sought a short adjournment to present its factual and legal position.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for time-bound promotion requires consideration in light of the Full Bench ruling that passing the accounts examination is not a sine qua non for ACP/MACP benefits.

2. Whether consequential benefits should follow if the petitioner’s claim is found to have merit.

In Kamlanand Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2025 (2) PLJR 623, the Full Bench held that passing the accounts examination is not a sine qua non for extending ACP/MACP benefits.

The Court stated that the same principle applies to time-bound promotion, which is an anti-stagnation measure.

The Court considered that the petitioner’s claim had been denied on the basis of his failure to pass the accounts examination, while the Full Bench had held that passing the examination was not an essential condition for ACP/MACP benefits.

It found that the same principle applied to time-bound promotion and therefore the petitioner’s claim warranted consideration under that precedent.

The Court did not decide the petitioner’s entitlement on the merits; instead, it directed him to submit a separate representation with the relevant decisions and documents.

The concerned authority must consider it and pass appropriate orders in light of the Full Bench decision.

If the claim is found meritorious, consequential benefits must also be extended.