IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1256 of 2005 Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Chhotan Prasad Singh, R/o Quarter No.7, Irrigation Colony, Jawaripur, P.S. Tilaka Manjhi, District- Bhagalpur. ……….Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur 3. The Superintending Engineer, Design Circle, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur. 4. The District Accounts Officer, Collectorate, Bhagalpur ………Respondent-Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Lalan Kumar No.1, Adv. For the State : Sanjay Prakash Verma, AC to GA-3 ----------- 7. 12.08.2011 The present L.P.A. arises out of order dated 21.09.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2346 of 2004 whereby the appellant was aggrieved for not granting the relief and also for refusal of the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order dated 28.6.2003 contained in Annexure-1, whereby the date of promotion of the appellant was shifted on the post of Correspondence Clerk from 22.2.1984 to 1.4.1979 vide order at Annexure-1. Case of the appellant is that he was initially appointed as Treasury Guard on 29.9.1972 and thereafter promoted to the post of Correspondence Clerk on 10.11.1981, subsequently he was reverted back from the said post on 13.11.1982 as the Government has circulated a policy to reserve 25% posts out of Class-IV employees and therefore the date of promotion of the appellant was shifted by the Chief Engineer from 1.4.1979 to 22.2.1984 and again he was posted on the vacant post of Accounts Clerk and then taken the work of Correspondence clerk and thereafter the respondent authority had issued the order dated 26.8.2004 canceling the promotion of the appellant. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the averment of the petitioner that the promotion of the similarly situated persons promoted on the same line have not been cancelled by the respondent whereas benefit accrued to the appellant was cancelled due to policy of the Government, i.e. reservation of 25% post from Class-IV to Class-III. Reliance was placed on the Government policy by learned counsel for the appellant. We had also occasion to go through the policy. The policy did not explicitly reveal that the Government had any intention to reserve 25% post of Class-IV post to Class-III post respectively. In absence of any such policy being enunciated by the Government, we are of the opinion that the Chief Engineer ought not have shifted the date of promotion of the appellant vide Annexure-1. Under the above circumstances, we are in complete in-agreement with the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there would be shifting of date of promotion respectively and hence there should be no order contained in Annexure-1. But however as the appellant has worked on such post for such a considerable time, we are of the opinion that as it is not a case of misrepresentation or fraud, the date of promotion of the appellant should be counted for Class- III post from 22.2.1984 and accordingly the appellant is entitled for pensionary and other benefit accrued to him under Class-IV post with effect from 1.4.1979. We also make it clear that as this is not a case of misrepresentation or fraud no recovery shall be made from the salary of the appellant. With the above observation this L.P.A. stands allowed. Fahad ( T.Meena Kumari, J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J. )