IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4958 of 2006 PANNA LAL UPADHAYA Versus THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATIOIN BOARD & ORS ----------- 5 05.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is one of the persons whose name figured in the order dated 27.04.2000 contained in Annexure – 5. Vide same, a promotion order which came to be passed in favour of a large number of employees numbering – 33 in the year 1999 was sought to be taken away by the respondent’s Bihar School Examination Board (B.S.E.B.). Some of the aggrieved petitioners came before this Court challenging the decision in question which was the case of Sheo Dutt Sharma & Another Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 10575 of 2005. A detailed hearing on the issue was held and a decision dated 26.09.2007 came to be passed in the matter. Every facet of the argument and contention was looked into by the Court and it finally came to a conclusion that the order dated 27.04.2000 was fit to be quashed. I am informed at the bar that this order still stands and has not been interfered by a Division Bench or any superior court. If this is the position, then the court has no hesitation in holding the case of the present petitioner being no different from the case and the issue which was raised by the Sheo Dutt Sharma. The only option then for the Court is to quash Annexure – 2, by virtue of which the earlier benefit of promotion granted in the year 1999 has sought to be taken - 2 - away in the year 2000 for an erroneous consideration. The writ application stands allowed with a direction upon the respondents that the petitioner will also be entitled to consequential benefits in terms of the promotion order granted earlier on 15.01.1999. Since he has already superannuated, his retirement benefit would be reworked on the above basis as if Annexure – 5 had not come into play. The writ application is allowed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)