IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4428 of 2004 BISHESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE RAMJI MAAHTO R/O VILL- AURANI, PS- PAKRI BARAWAN,DISTT- NAWADAH AT PRESENT CORRESPONDENCE CLERK OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTRAOL DIVISION MOKAMA CAMP-BAKHTIYARPUR-----PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECY. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT, BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR ANISHABAD, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUNPUN FLOOD PROTECTION CIRCLE, ANISHABAD, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION MOKAMAH CAMP-BAKHTIYARPUR--------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 20.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-3 is under challenge in the present writ application. This is dated 24.9.2002 by virtue of which time bound promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 15.2.91 was taken away on the ground that in terms of the Circular No. 660 dated 8.2.99 of the Finance Department the cut-off date for passing Accounts Examination was fixed at 31.12.95. This was done because thereafter the concept of time bound promotion was given a goby on the recommendation of next Pay Revision Committee which had come into force. Admittedly the petitioner passed this examination on 3.4.96 i.e. after the cut of date of 31.12.95. Submission of learned counsel is that passing of Accounts Examination was not mandatory and he is entitled to time bound promotion. In addition to that the benefit once given cannot be taken away by the respondent at a subsequent stage. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner - 2 - was worthy of consideration provided on an identical issue a decision had not been rendered by a Bench of this Court in a case of Daya Shankar Singh vrs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 220. Identical question has been dealt with by learned Single Judge and there is categorical finding that passing of the departmental Accounts Examination is mandatory for the purpose of getting time bound promotion. The law being what it is the order contained in annexure-3 seems to be inconsonance with the rules. No relief can be granted keeping in view the ratio laid down in the case above. So far as the recovery is concerned that aspect requires consideration in view of the fact that the benefit conferred to the petitioner was sought to be taken away after more than 12 years and when he has already superannuated from the post. The question of recovery therefore does not arise at this belated stage. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation/direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)