IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.331 of 2010 1. BHARTI CHANDRA GHOSH S/O SRI JYOTISH CHANDRA GHOSH R/O VILL.- BHURIA, P.S.- SANHAULA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA : GANDAK COLONY, ROAD NO.1, RAMDAYALU NAGAR, P.S.: KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TIRHUT CANAL DIVISION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TIRHUT CANAL DIVISION NO.1, GOVT. OF BIHAR, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 03 26.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has cleared the departmental examination in papers 1 and 3, but failed in paper 2, requiring him to seek exemption for grant of A.C.P. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 9872 of 2009. This Court noticed the defence of the respondents and a delayed consideration of his application for exemption by official lapses to opine that responsibility for official delay could not be fixed at the door step of the petitioner and directed his case to be considered appropriately leading to the impugned order dated 29.9.2009. It states that he has retired on 2 30.4.2007. After one year ten months of his retirement, the application for exemption had been placed for consideration. Since the exemption is applicable from the date of order, the question of considering exemption after his superannuation does not arise. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted his application for exemption on 18.8.2006 before superannuation. The counter affidavit of the respondents in paragraph-10 acknowledges this fact but raises the defence in paragraph-12 that it was mis-placed and the petitioner had superannuated in the meantime. On admitted facts, the fault lies with the respondents. They cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own lapses to but deny exemption to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds and directs that the exemption shall be deemed to have been granted from the date of application as provided in Government Instruction No. 4368 on 20.8.2009. The order dated 29.9.2009 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)