IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14052 of 2004 KEDAR NATH PANDEY, son of Bam Bahadur Pandey, resident of village – Joginia, P.O. Hanuman Nagar, District – Saptari, Anchal – Sagarmatha (Nepal), at present residing at village – Kanchanpur, Ward No. 4, P.O. Kanchanapur, District – Saptari. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation (Mechanical)Anchal Birpur, P O – Birpur, P.S. Birpur, District – Supaul. 4. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division Purnia, District – Purnia. ----------- 03. 9.8.2010 Impugned order is dated 26.4.2004, which is Anneuxre-7 to the writ application by virtue of which the benefit of promotion granted to the petitioner, while in service was sought to be taken away on the ground that persons appointed in the work charge establishment are not entitled to any avenues of promotion except time-bound promotion. Since petitioner was appointed as a helper in the work charge establishment, the subsequent promotions granted to him on the post of Junior Mechanic Grade-II and thereafter as accounts clerk have been cancelled and order for recovery has also been made after refixing his pay on the post of helper. At the very outset counsel for the petitioner does accept the fact that there was no substantive promotion on the post of accounts clerk. It was adhoc arrangement necessitated out of exigencies of service since the then cashier posted in the sub-division got transferred and petitioner was saddled with the responsibility of looking after the cash work and accounts. To that extent the impugned order, contained 2 in annexure-7, does not require any interference. It may also be clarified that for shouldering such higher responsibility petitioner was granted benefit of 20 per cent higher pay in terms of Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code and the order in this regard is annexure-4. This part of the benefit also cannot be taken away from the petitioner in view of the fact that the respondents do not deny that the petitioner was asked to shoulder higher responsibility than the post which he was holding at the relevant time. But the question arises whether the benefit of promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Junior Mechanic Grade-II after a decision being taken by regular establishment can also be undone on the basis of the so-called letter of the Chief Engineer that work charge employees were not entitled to any promotion besides time bound promotion? There is no denial that petitioner was given the benefit of regularization or conferment of permanent status vide letter No. 3785 dated 9.7.1975 and thereafter the benefit of promotion of Junior Mechanic Grade-II was also confirmed. When the petitioner came on the regular rolls of the respondents, the so-called letter of the Chief Engineer with regard to work charge employees not being entitled to any benefit of promotion, may not come into play. If the petitioner had remained in the work charge establishment, then the question could have been argued but the fact stands that the petitioner was put in the regular establishment vide a notification issued by the respondents and thereafter the benefit of promotion was granted, the same cannot be 3 taken away by misapplication of the circular in this regard. The writ application is allowed to the extent that the benefit of promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Junior Mechanic Grade-II cannot be taken away but so far as the claim of the petitioner to be treated as Accounts Clerk is concerned, it does not have any basis.. So far as recovery is concerned, the consequence of the interference to the extent will flow in favour of the petitioner. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, his post retiral dues would be required to be fixed on the basis of his promotion to the post of Junior Mechanic Grade-II. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)