IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10917 of 2006 RAM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY, son of late Agnu Choudhary, resident of village and P.S. Giriak, District Nalanda … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Malaria Officer, Bihar, Patna 3. The Civil Surgeon, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif 4. The District Malaria Officer, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif 5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Rajgir, District Nalanda 6. The Accountant General of Bihar ( A & E) … Respondents ----------- 3. 13.9.2010 Heard Mr. Murari Narain Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also the Accountant General. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) For quashing of an order dated 20th October, 2003 issued with the signature of the Chief Malaria Officer, Patna (respondent no.2), contained in Annexure 3 to this application, whereby and whereunder, after cancellation of one of the promotion granted to this petitioner, an order for refixation of salary has been issued.” While Mr. Choudhary had tried to assail the impugned order by taking a plea that the petitioner’s time bound promotion given with effect from 1.4.1981 would not 2 have been cancelled after seven years of his retirement, he could not justify grant of such first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981. As a matter of fact when the petitioner was given his first promotion on the post of Basic Health Worker on 9.5.1989 with effect from 1.1.1973, he could not have in terms of the resolution of the Finance Department dated 30.12.1981 given also time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981. Thus, the petitioner’s first time bound promotion could have become available to him only with effect from 1.4.1983 and to that extent there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Chief Malaria Officer dated 20.10.2003. Once this aspect becomes clear that the petitioner’s reckoning of time bound promotion on his last post held on which he could not get any regular promotion is 1.1.1973, it automatically follows that he had also not fulfilled the period of 25 years so as to be given the benefit of second time bound promotion. It has to be noted that the petitioner had superannuated with effect from 31st May, 1998 3 whereas the benefit of time bound promotion upon abolition of the policy came to an end with effect from 1.1.1996. In any event the petitioner’s second time bound promotion was rightly rescinded by the impugned order as he was never entitled for the same. Counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that recovery of excess amount though directed was not made from the salary or retiral benefit of the petitioner in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court and therefore, there would be also no pecuniary loss to the petitioner so far it relates to excess amount drawn by him. None- the-less the petitioner’s retirement benefit would be fixed only in terms of the salary to which he was legally entitled to draw as has been clarified in the impugned order dated 20.10.2003. That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 4