IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2683 of 2007 DASARATH PANDEY SON OF LATE RAM GANESH PANDEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAYANPUR, P.O. KALYANPUR, P.S. BIHIYA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH), PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR MECHANIC GRADE II UNDER EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MECHANICAL), ROAD CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, ARRAH. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) MECHANICAL WING ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MECHANICAL CIRCLE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) MECHANICAL DIVISON, ROAD CONSTRUCTION, ARRAH, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, ARAH. 8. THE FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 2 29/07/2010 The benefit of promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Junior Mechanic Grade II with effect from 1.10.1979 has been taken away by virtue of the decision communicated in annexure-3 dated 17.10.2006. Correspondingly time bound promotion given to the petitioner has also been re-fixed. The reason given by the - 2 - respondents is that there is no avenue of promotion of the kind available as the hierarchy does not exist and promotion given from the work charge establishment was found to be erroneous by the Finance Department. If the order of placing the petitioner in the permanent establishment contained in annexure-1 and the order of promotion contained in annexure-2 would have related only to the petitioner, then there could have been an occasion to doubt the decision taken by the concerned authority but both the notifications seem to have been issued after deliberation of the Establishment Committee and the benefits have been conferred upon a large number of employees and the petitioner does not seem to be an isolated case for conferment of such benefit. Obviously, the left hand of the governance does not know what the right hand is doing. To make it worse the decision contained in annexure- 3 has now come to be issued after more than 26 years. Whether in such circumstance they can be allowed to undo something which was done many a decades ago is the question which has been raised by the petitioner. Law is well settled in this regard that the benefit - 3 - derived by an employee for such a long time cannot be undone on the ground that it has been wrongly done. Benefit has accrued not only to the petitioner but many other employees but there is nothing to indicate that any action has been taken against the person who has issued Annexures- 1 and 2. The order impugned (annexure-3), therefore, seems to be per se arbitrary and contrary to records and it stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)