IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3427 of 2007 SACHIDA NAND PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04/ 22.02.2010 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha No. 2, learned assisting counsel to SC 9 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing no. 236 dated 31.1.2004(Annexure-5), whereby his time bound promotion has been cancelled by reason of his non passing of departmental accounts examination and recovery of the excess amount has been directed. The petitioner also challenges the consequential order dated 26.7.2004 (Annexure-6), whereby the benefits accorded to the petitioner by reason of his time bound promotion were sought to be withdrawn. Pursuant to the order(s) aforesaid a sum of Rs. 1,61,191/- was recovered from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner out of which Rs. 75,000/- was recovered from the unutilized Leave salary amount, under the order dated 20.10.2004 placed at Annexure-7 to the writ petition and the remaining amount was recovered from the other retiral benefits. With consent of the parties the matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2 The facts in brief is that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Accounts Clerk with effect from 31.7.2004. The petitioner passed his Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination on 31.5.1976 and had been granted time bound promotion vide order dated 25.5.1986 placed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Barely few months before the superannuation of the petitioner, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 came to be issued. The petitioner questions the said orders withdrawing the time bound promotion, re-fixation of scale and the recovery effected pursuant thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court raising the issue in question and the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13402 of 2004 was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 8.2.2006, whereby liberty was granted to the petitioner to represent his case before the authorities concerned. An identical issue was involved in a case reported in 1999(3) P.L.J.R. 648 (Ramjee Prasad Singh Versus State & Ors.). By a bench decision it was held that the grant of time bound promotion had no nexus with the passing of the examination. Learned counsel for the State was not able to inform whether the said Bench decision has been upset by a 3 superior Court. In fact the said decision has been followed by a recent judgment of this Court reported in 2009(2) P.L.J.R. 820. Following the said decision(s) of this Court (supra), this writ petition is allowed and the orders impugned are set aside. It is held that the petitioner would be entitled to his time bound promotion in the light of the order dated 25.5.1986 and consequential benefits flowing therefrom. He would also be entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 1,61,198/- which has been recovered in pursuance of the order dated 20.10.2004 as contained in Annexure-7. The writ petition is allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)