IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7903 of 2004 LAL BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE RAGHUNATH SINGH R/O MOHALLA-BANGALI TOLA, RAM NAGAR ROAD CHIRAITARH PS-JAKKANPUR,DISTT-PATNA-PETITINNER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECY. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN,PATNA 2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR SACHAI BHAWAN PATNA 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. SECY. FINANCE DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, MIAN SECRETARIATE, PATNA 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. BUXAR----------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 6 20.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. After filing of the writ application where a challenge to annexure-1 was made, the respondent’s authorities have passed yet another order which is dated 15.7.2005. This order has been brought on record in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 5 dated 20th September, 2005. By virtue of this order the benefit of time bound promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1987 has been taken away or modified to the extent that time bound promotion will accrue to petitioner from 27.3.1987 and not 1.4.1987. A reading of the circular no. 1503 dated 27.3.1987 which is annexure-21 to the writ application supports the decision of the government and to that extent that part of the order cannot be interfered with. Petitioner has no case on that score. Coming to the second part to the decision where - 2 - the benefit of promotion given to the petitioner on the post of driller with effect from 21.11.76 is also sought to be taken away on the ground that since the petitioner was taken on regular establishment in the year 1977 he was not entitled to promotion in the work charge establishment before confirmation. Submission of learned counsel is that the promotion was given to him years ago. The petitioner has thereafter superannuated and there is nothing on record to show that the benefit accrued to petitioner was on any kind of misrepresentation on his part in obtaining that benefit. Post retirement they can not pass any order of recovery based on such a promotion that too after more than 36 years of the order of promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Syed Abdul Kadir & Ors. vrs. State of Bihar & others reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC). Taking cue from the ratio of the said decision the impugned order now contained in annexure-A which has also been challenged in I.A. No. 6711 of 2010 is hereby quashed to the extent that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner in terms of the order dated 15.7.2005. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)