JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner with following prayers: (i) To quash and set aside the decision of the screening committee of not granting promotion to the petitioner under Time-Bound Scheme, which was communicated to the petitioner through a contained letter of in memo no VBU/P/HC/88/2017/1482/19 dated 22.05.2019. (Annexure-13) (ii) To direct the respondents, in particular respondent nos. 2 and 3, to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader and other consequential benefits. including the promotion to the next higher post of Professor, counting the services of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment on 25.2.1983 under the Time Bond Scheme of promotion. (iii) To hold and declare that the initial date of appointment of the petitioner on 25.2.1983 would be the date for the purpose of counting of continuous services of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Reader and Professor respectively as per the scheme of Time Bond scheme. (iv) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Reader and consequently to the post of Professor in accordance with law counting his services from 25.2.1983 i.e. the date of initial appointment. (v) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the State of Bihar, Education Department sanctioned two posts of Lecturers in the pay-scale of Rs.700-1600 in Adarsh College, Rajdhanwar by letter dated 14.09.1982. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was appointed on sanctioned and vacant post of Lecturer in History subject by letter dated 24.02.1983 and petitioner gave his joining on 25.02.1983. Thereafter, on 10.12.1983, the Bihar College Service Commission, Patna granted concurrence to the appointment of petitioner w.e.f. 25.02.1983 i.e. the date of his joining. On 22.03.1985, the Bihar College Service Commission, Patna extended the concurrence on certain conditions relating to five Lecturers including the present petitioner. 4. Initially, the Adarsh College, Rajdhanwar was established in 1973 and was affiliated to Ranchi University, however, the said college was converted into constituent college of Ranchi University w.e.f. 11.01.1978. On 22.03.1985, the Bihar College Service Commission, Patna extended the concurrence on certain conditions relating to five Lecturers including the present petitioner. 4. Initially, the Adarsh College, Rajdhanwar was established in 1973 and was affiliated to Ranchi University, however, the said college was converted into constituent college of Ranchi University w.e.f. 11.01.1978. Thereafter, on the establishment of Vinoba Bhave University, the Adarsh College became a constituent college of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and after formation of State of Jharkhand, the said college falls within the territorial limits of the State of Jharkhand. 5. In the light of orders passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995 and in pursuance of Section 4(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the services of the petitioner along with others were regularized w.e.f. 25.02.1983. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 and during the pendency of the said appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal to submit a report on the issue of regularization of services of teaching and non-teaching staff of constituent college. 6. Upon submission of report, the Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 was disposed of. On 16.09.2005, Vinoba Bhave University issued a notification; whereby the services of the petitioner along with others were regularized. In the said notification, the date of initial joining of the petitioner was mentioned as 25.02.1983 and the date of absorption was mentioned as 09.05.1988. 7. The case of the petitioner is that as per the scheme of time bound promotion, he was entitled for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader on completion of 10 years of continuous service. Similarly, he was entitled for consequential promotion to the post of Professor on completion of 25 years of service from the date of initial appointment. 8. The petitioner requested several times to the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University for consideration of his case but all went in vain. The petitioner as a last resort, approached this Court by filing W.P.(S). No. 6894 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University to take a decision as per the direction of this Court. 9. The petitioner as a last resort, approached this Court by filing W.P.(S). No. 6894 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University to take a decision as per the direction of this Court. 9. Instead of taking any decision, the petitioner learnt that Respondent No. 1 had filed a CMP bearing CMP No. 451 of 2018, although, the said CMP stood dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, by letter dated 22.05.2019, the case of petitioner for Time Bound Promotion has been rejected, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application. 10. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-8, which is a Notification issued by the Vinoba Bhave University absorbing the petitioner. The said order (Anexure-8) clearly indicates that the date of initial appointment of the petitioner was 25.02.1983 and he was absorbed on 09.05.1988. 11. Mr. Tandon further referred to the “Statute for promotion of Demonstrators to the post of Lecturers”. He further referred to the “Statutes for time bound promotion of Lecturers to post of Readers and for Readers to the post of University Professors” and submits that Clause 1(1)(c) clearly indicates that a person who has completed at least 10 years of continuous service as Lecturer in one or more Universities, he is entitled for promotion on the post of Reader. Relying upon the aforesaid clause, 12. Mr. Tandon contended that time bound promotion and regular promotion are different. Time bound promotion is basically a monetary benefit in order to avoid the stagnation and in the Statute, it is clearly stated that 10 years of continuous service as Lecturer will be the requirement of promotion. The Statute of the University does not stipulate a single word or distinguishes a person working on work charged/temporary or a regular employee. 13. He further referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , (2019) 10 SCC 516 wherein at paras-33 and 34, it has been held that services rendered even prior to regularization in the capacity of work charged employee, contingency paid fund employee or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in pensionable establishment. 14. , (2019) 10 SCC 516 wherein at paras-33 and 34, it has been held that services rendered even prior to regularization in the capacity of work charged employee, contingency paid fund employee or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in pensionable establishment. 14. Referring to this judgment, learned counsel submits that now law is no more res-integra that for the purpose of pension the initial date of appointment is to be counted and for time bound promotion the Statute is very clear which says only continuous service as Lecturer in one or more Universities. Accordingly, the prayers made in the writ application be allowed. 15. He further referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 27 of 2023 (Amrendra Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein the Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the judgment passed in Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), has reiterated the same view. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the writ petitioner and relying upon paras-5 & 8 of the counter-affidavit dated 14.07.2022 submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. For brevity, para-5 & 8 of the counter-affidavit is extracted herein below: “ 5. That it is stated and submitted that it is mentioned in the Justice S.C Aggarwal Commission report that: "An Examination of the qualifications of the remaining member of Teaching Staff Shows that the following member of teaching Staff did not possess requisite qualification on the date of the appointment. Sri Rabindra Kumar Roy was appointed as lecturer in History by order dated February 24, 1983. On the date of appointment, he did not have consistently good academic record in as much as he had not obtained an aggregate of 50% marks in two previous examinations as required under the 1978 Statues which were applicable. He, however had first class Post Graduation Qualification. He became eligible for consideration on May 9, 1988." 6. …………. 7. ………….. 8. That it is stated and submitted that the cut-off date for promotion scheme is 22.09.1995 and the Petitioner completes his tenure of ten years as on 08.05.1998 which is after the cut off due date.” 17. He, however had first class Post Graduation Qualification. He became eligible for consideration on May 9, 1988." 6. …………. 7. ………….. 8. That it is stated and submitted that the cut-off date for promotion scheme is 22.09.1995 and the Petitioner completes his tenure of ten years as on 08.05.1998 which is after the cut off due date.” 17. Learned counsel further referred to the judgment passed in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. [Diary No. 43488 of 2023; 2024 INSC 906 ], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to the judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath , 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334 , held that promotion is not a fundamental right; rather, it can only be considered and no retrospective promotion can be granted to any person and promotion cannot be granted when the person has not taken birth on the position. Relying upon the aforesaid paragraphs of counter-affidavit and judgment, he submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavit, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on 25.02.1983 and he was duly absorbed on 09.05.1988 and after serving 36 years, the petitioner superannuated from service on 26.11.2019. This application was filed prior to his retirement claiming for time bound promotion and also for considering the date of initial appointment for pensionary benefits. 19. So far as counting of period for the purpose of pensionary benefits is concerned; the same has been set at rest. Even the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.27 of 2023 (Amrendra Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors), has held in para-4 as under: “ 4. The question of law involved is not any more res-integra and it has been settled in various judgments by the Supreme Court including one in the case of Prem Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the imposition of rider that such service, i.e., service in the work-charged establishment, to be counted has to be rendered in- between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. The Supreme Court has further held that on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment, it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. The Supreme Court further held that it would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In the opinion of the Supreme Court impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court held that such classification is highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification.” 20. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the order passed in the said LPA was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, the same was dismissed and the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere with the judgment. 21. Thus, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits treating his date of initial appointment. 22. So far as the issue of time bound promotion is concerned; it is true that regular promotion cannot be given retrospectively. It is also not in dispute that promotion become effective from the date it is granted, and not from the date when vacancy arises or post is created. 22. So far as the issue of time bound promotion is concerned; it is true that regular promotion cannot be given retrospectively. It is also not in dispute that promotion become effective from the date it is granted, and not from the date when vacancy arises or post is created. However, at this stage it is relevant to mention that neither the judgment passed in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (supra) is applicable in this case, nor time bound promotion and regular promotion are one and the same. 23. So far as time bound promotion is concerned; it is basically a financial upgradation which is given to the employee in order to avoid stagnation. There is no quarrel with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (supra), however, the fact remains that the instant case is not a case of promotion; rather, it is a case of time bound promotion and as stated herein above it is merely a financial upgradation. 24. At this stage it is also relevant to refer the Statute for Time Bound Promotion of Lecturers to the post of Readers and from Readers to the post of University Professors dated 24.12.1986, wherein in Clause-1(1)(c) it has been categorically stated that only 10 years of continuous service as Lecturer is required. 25. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ application is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.05.2019. (Annexure-13), is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the monetary benefit accruing from time bound promotion calculating the date of initial appointment i.e. 25.02.1983 and pay all the monetary benefits including the revision of pension within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.