IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.530 of 2007 Zainuddin Ahmad, son of Syed Abdul Ghani, resident of Alamganj, Agarwal tola, House No. A/16, P.S. Alamganj, district Patna …. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Patna 4. The Accountant General, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate For the State :Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, A.C. to G.P.-18 For the A.G. :Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Advocate 02/ 18.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Accountant General. 2. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Stenographer in the Collectorate, Patna with effect from 31.7.2003. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the corrigendum order bearing Memo No.2204 dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Collector, Patna, Annexure-1, whereunder first time bound promotion granted to him under District Order No. 68 dated 30.12.1987 in the scale of Rs. 730/- - 1080/- has been corrected reducing the scale to Rs. 680/- 965/- and second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner under District Order No. 441 dated 1.3.1993 with effect from 7.12.1992 has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner 2 did not complete 25 years of service on the post of Stenographer as on 7.12.1992. Under order bearing Memo No. 900 dated 22.3.2006, Annexure-2, second A.C.P. allowed to the petitioner under order bearing Memo No. 2340 dated 8.12.2004 with effect from 9.8.1999 has been cancelled. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after his superannuation on 31.7.2003, his pension etc. was fixed in the promoted scale which he was getting on the eve of his superannuation in the light of the observation made by this Court made during the hearing of C.W.J.C. No. 671 of 2005. It is further submitted that having fixed the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the time bound promotions and second A.C.P. benefit granted to him, the authorities after passage of 2-3 years of the retirement of the petitioner ought not to have reduced the scale granted to him in lieu of 1st time bound promotion as also cancelled the second time bound promotion/ A.C.P. benefit under corrigendum order dated 29.10.2005 and 22.3.2006, Annexures-1 and 2. It is also submitted that before proceeding to pass aforesaid two orders dated 29.10.2005 and 22.3.2006, Annexures-1 and 2, the 3 Collector, Patna never gave the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that time bound promotion and A.C.P. benefits were allowed to petitioner without any misrepresentation by the petitioner, as such, the benefits already granted and appropriated by the petitioner ought not to have been recovered in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009(2) PLJR 74(SC). 4. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, petitioner has categorically stated that the impugned orders dated 29.10.2005 and 22.3.2006, Annexures-1 and 2 were passed without giving him any opportunity of being heard, which statement of the petitioner has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. 5. In the circumstances, I have no option, but to set aside the two impugned orders dated 29.10.2005 and 22.3.2006, Annexures-1 and 2 and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Patna to reconsider the matter of reduction of the scale pursuant to grant of first time bound promotion and cancellation of the second time bound 4 promotion and the second A.C.P. benefit as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. (Supra). 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)