IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10125 of 2006 UMA SHANKAR RAI SON OF LATE MOHAN ROY, RESIDENT OF CHUNNI, P.S. BUXAR SADAR (TOWN), BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, OGVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NALKUP DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, BUXAR. 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, BUXAR DIVISION TREASURY BUXAR. 6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 2 24/11/2010 Annexure-2 is the order which has come to be passed by the Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Buxar by virtue of which benefit of first time bound promotion given to the petitioner 21 years ago has now been undone and a sum of Rs.37,830/- has been deducted in one instalment as the so called excess payment made under that head. Reason for passing such an order after retirement of the petitioner is that petitioner did not pass the so called departmental examination of Accounts. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order has been passed after 21 years and that - 2 - too without any notice, without any hearing or opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position to the authorities. Any order which has civil consequences requires a right of hearing and this proposition cannot be disputed. Petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity before a decision of this kind came to be taken after his retirement and that too after more than two decades. Learned counsel for the State seems to be correct in stating that the decision taken by the respondents to some extent cannot be faulted because passing of the departmental examination is also a must for deriving time bound promotion as well. In this case reliance has been placed in the case of Daya Shankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2010(3) PLJR, 220. However, in the same decision this Hon’ble Court has also held that looking at the long period for which benefit has been enjoyed by an employee and the same has been sought to be undone now in grant of which petitioner had no role, no order of recovery can be - 3 - made. In view of the law as laid down above, the decision to take away the benefit of first time bound promotion cannot be interfered with but so far as recovery is concerned, the same cannot be permitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that this deduction has already been made. Law being what it is, respondent no.4, Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Buxar is hereby directed to take steps for refunding a sum of Rs.37,830/- to the petitioner which has been deducted under the head of excess drawal due to grant of time bound promotion to the petitioner earlier within a period of four months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)