IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.402 of 2008 BAIJNATH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Ram Naresh Sharma For the respondents 2 to 7 : Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Mr. A.N.Rai --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 22nd September, 2008 Letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 10th March, 2008 passed by the single judge. Appeal has been preferred on 21st May, 2008. It suffers from delay of 32 days. For condonation thereof, an application (IA. No.3362 of 2008) has been made. 2. The cause of delay set out in the application is the illness of appellant. Although no specific details of the illness have been given but since the delay is of 32 days only, we are satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned. More so, because the averment of illness made by the appellant has not been controverted by the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 7. 3. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. IA. No.3362 of 2008 stands disposed of. 5. Appeal is admitted. 2 6. Mr. A. N. Rai, Advocate waives service for respondent nos. 2 to 7. Service on respondent no.1 is dispensed with being a formal party. Taking into consideration the controversy raised in the appeal, we dispose of the appeal finally at this stage. 7. The single judge has held that the order dated 26.9.2003 cancelling the time bound promotion was arbitrary. He , accordingly, quashed the said order. Having held so, the consequences flowing from quashing the order of 26.9.2003 could not have justifiably been denied. Once the order dated 26.9.2003 was found suffering from the vice of arbitrariness and was quashed by the single judge , obviously, the amount which was withheld/recovered from retiral dues of the appellant should have been given to him. Such payment could have been made subject to the ultimate decision in the inquiry, which has been ordered to be reheld. However, there cannot be and is not any justification in not asking the corporation to pay to the appellant the amount recovered/deducted from his retiral dues. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration and are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: (i) The respondent nos.2 to 7 shall pay to the appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the amount recovered/deducted from his retiral dues, subject to the appellant giving an undertaking to the Corporation that in the event of the ultimate adverse result in the inquiry that the financial benefits 3 were received by him on the basis of his misrepresentation, the amount shall be restituted to the Corporation within four weeks from the date of such decision. (ii) All the contentions that have been raised by the appellant in the show cause, obviously, shall be considered by the authority in the light of the observations made by the single judge in the impugned order dated 10th March, 2008. (iii) The order passed by the single judge dated 10th March, 2008 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/