IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9254 of 2006 MAHENDRA NATH CHOUDHURY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Vishwanath Ram & Ajay Kumar For the State : Mr J.P.Karn, AAG 9 ----- 2. 06.05.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner, on 23.3.1968, was appointed as a Skilled Helper in the work charge establishment in the Koshi Project. On 1.1.1972 he was promoted to the post of Welder-2 in the work charge establishment on a pay scale of Rs. 240-396/- and was given revised scale thereof from time to time. It is his further case that a policy decision was taken in August 1981 with concurrence of the Finance Department to make permanent all such persons in the work charge establishment who had completed five years as on 1.4.1977. Consequently by order dated 29.9.1981 the petitioner was brought into the regular establishment with effect from 1.4.1977. He was then granted lst time bound promotion on 26.4.1995 with effect from 27.3.1987 along with replacement scale. The promotions given to him came to be cancelled on 19.3.2004 without any notice to him on the ground that he was not entitled to the same and reverted him back to his post as Skilled Helper with orders for recovery. He filed a representation on 23.1.2006 in which amongst other things he also pointed out that others similarly situated who came to be regularized have since retired and were getting their pension on the basis of their promotional salary. Learned Counsel next relies upon a circular dated 27.3.1987 issued by the Finance Department with regard to grant of selection grade and time bound promotion to persons in the work charge establishment. From Clause 3(b) thereof the submission is that the period spent in the work charge establishment was also required to be counted for the purpose of time bound promotion. In that view of the matter in the background of his appointment in the work charge establishment on 23.3.1968 he was also entitled to second time bound promotion for which he be came eligible prior to its abolition with effect from 1.1.1996. During pendency of the writ application the respondents have suo motu reconsidered and passed fresh orders as appended at Annexure A to the counter affidavit. It states that promotion of the petitioner to the post of Welder-2 on 1.1.1972 shall be deemed to be a fresh appointment since he was not eligible to be promoted. In that view of the matter he was not entitled to the second time bound promotion. However reliance by the petitioner on the circular dated 27.3.1987 as noticed above has not been denied.. Neither there is denial that in pursuance of a policy decision the petitioner earlier came to be regularized from work charge establishment, which order has not been annulled, modified or reviewed. In pursuance of the order dated 27.9.2006 at Annexure A to the counter affidavit orders for recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner have been passed. However no reason has been assigned for reduction of the pay scale of the petitioner in pursuance of the time bound promotions as originally granted to him. In the facts ands circumstances of the case from the pleadings of the parties and the entire tenor of their submissions it is apparent that the petitioner has not been at fault at any stage. He has made no misrepresentation. No reasons have been assigned why the pay scale of the petitioner on the post of Welder-2 was required to be varied 35 years later. This order has been passed barely months before his superannuation on 31.3.2007.The counter affidavit does not deal with or discuss the reason why the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the period spent in the work charge establishment for computation of his seconds time bound promotion reckoned from 23.3.1968. In the result the writ application has to be allowed. The order dated 19.3.2004 having been recalled by the respondents requires no interference by the Court. The order dated 27.9.2006 and order dated 29.2.2008 ordering recovery are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of second time bound promotion and the consequential benefits under the circular dated 27.3.1987 and grant him the benefit of the same treating his period in the in the work charge establishment from 23.3.1968 as valid for the purpose. Let the arrears of benefits of the second time bound promotion and any other benefits along with consequential monetary benefits and re-fixation of his retrial dues be cone accordingly within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)