IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2127 of 2007 DHAN KUMAR TIWARI, son of Late Ganga Narayan Tiwari, resident of village – Porahan, P.O. Parasurampur, P.S. Krishngarh, via – Sinha, District – Bhojpur (Ara); Presently working as Junior Mechanic Grade-2, working under Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Road Construction Division, Ara. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Vishwasaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical) Mechanical Wing, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Vishwasaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Road Construction Department, Vishwasaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 7. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) Mechanical Division, Road Construction , Ara, near Head Post Office, Ara. 8. The Finance Secretary, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. ----------- 02. 29.7.2010 Petitioner is a retired employee now. He was holding the post of Junior Mechanic Grade-II. The reason for his approaching the High Court is a communication and decision dated 17.10.2006 by virtue of which the promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Junior Mechanic Grade-II dated 8.9.1979 has been cancelled. The time- bound promotions have also been reworked and order of recovery for so-called excess pay drawn has also been passed. Petitioner wants quashing of this order in the present writ application. Petitioner does not deny that he entered the service of the respondents in the work charge establishment as a helper. After having rendered service for some time, vide Notification No. 70 dated 6.5.1982 he along with large number of other employees working on various posts came to be taken on the regular establishment. The said 2 notification is Annexure-6 to the writ application, which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. In addition to that, petitioner has also brought on record the notification dated 8.9.1979, which is Annexure-1 to the writ application. This notification has again conferred the benefit of promotion not only to the petitioner but many a employees based on the decision taken by the Establishment Committee. But this order of promotion granted in the year 1979 is found to be contrary to the rules only in the year 2006. The reason given is that the said promotion could not be given to the persons working in work charge establishment. Obviously the respondents or the authorities have no inkling of their own decision taken by the authorities from time to time. Annexure-6 is the notification showing the petitioner to be taken on the permanent roll and that benefit was not in isolation . So is the case with regard to the promotion order contained in Annexure-1. Obviously things are amiss while taking a decision in withdrawing benefit of promotion given to the petitioner more than 26 years ago. Stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the benefit of promotion could not be given to a work charge employee. The petitioner entered the service as a work charge employee and he had become permanent. There is a decision by the respondent authorities in this regard and the benefit of promotion thereafter has also been awarded to the petitioner with other 3 employees. In absence of any material to show that the two decisions came to be undone any time after their notifications, it is too late in the day now to say that the benefit of promotion given was wrongly given and the same can be taken away in the manner which is sought to be done by the communication contained in Annexure-2 after 26 years. Benefit of promotion even though wrongly granted at times but enjoyed by the employees for many a decades have been held by the courts to be in order by passage of long time. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time prior to the year 2006, any objection was taken with regard to the promotion, the post or the pay which the petitioner was drawing in that capacity. The decision taken in annexure-2, sans not only reasons but are contrary to the decisions taken by the respondents themselves earlier. If that be so, decision to take the benefit of promotion from the petitioner at such belated stage is arbitrary and irrational. Annexure-2 stands quashed and the writ application is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)