IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7022 of 2010 Mauleshwar Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ------------ For the petitioner Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocoate. Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate Mr. Staya Prakash Advocate. For the Respondents. Mr. Mayank Rukhiyar, A.C. to G.A.III ---------- 3 22.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2010 cancelling the promotion given to him on the post of Joint Registrar by order dated 20.6.2007 with effect from 1.8.2002. It appears that the reference to the date of promotion in the impugned order as 1.8.2007 is an inadvertent error. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order for promotion dated 20.6.2007 was passed by the respondents after proper consideration and application of mind consequent to the directions of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6846 of 2003 preferred by him. The impugned order is preceded by another order dated 10.02.2010 seeking to reopen the promotion. It does not allege any fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner to obtain the benefit. The petitioner has superannuated on 29.2.2008. The respondents have subsequently directed recovery also by the same order. The relationship of master and servant stood severed after the superannuation. Over and above, the impugned order has specifically been asserted in paragraph 24 of the pleadings to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the State contended that the promotion was 2 granted to the petitioner on consideration of parity with another. The promotion of the other has also been withdrawn. This was denied by the counsel for the petitioner urging that subsequently it has been restored. The court does not consider it necessary to go into those aspects. Even if the benefit was granted on the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, once the petitioner had reached his destination, he stands on his own strength. Before depriving him of the benefit his individual claim and rights have to be considered. The question of parity with another loses it relevance. The petitioner has specifically asserted violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order does not display any consideration that notice was issued to the petitioner before passing an order adverse to him visiting him with civil consequences. That vitiates the order without further more. Once a Govt. servant retires, the master and servant relationship stands severed, issues of fraud being a class apart, the only control of the respondents over a superannuated employee is under the Bihar Pension Rules. The impugned order dated 30.3.2010 passed on basis that a master and servant relationship after superannuation still subsists and in violation of the principles of natural justice is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. M.Rahman (Navin Sinha, J)