IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13367 of 2008 JAI RAM PRASAD, son of Late Mangal Yadav, resident of Mohalla Kumhrar, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Assistant Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna. ---Respondents ----------- 5. 10.7.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the Accountant General. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to recovery of a sum of Rs.65,130/- sought to be made from him, vide Memo No.2211 dated 25.10.2007, as contained in Annexure 9, on account of disallowing the benefits of the second time bound promotion, which was given to him with effect from 18.1.1987. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was legally entitled to get the second time bound promotion and as such it has rightly been given to him. It is further submitted that notwithstanding that the petitioner was entitled to get the second time bound promotion, the authorities were not correct in law in directing for recovery of the aforesaid amount after the retirement of the petitioner on 31st of August, 2000 in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud practised by the petitioner for receiving the second time bound promotion. The respondents have allowed the second time bound promotion on account of their own decision and not influenced in any manner by the petitioner and, as such, the order as contained in Annexure 9, with regard to the recovery of the aforesaid amount is unjustified in law. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that since the petitioner is not entitled to the second time 2 bound promotion, the amount which was paid to him on account of such promotion was rightly directed to be recovered. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of the grievances, as raised in this writ application against the aforesaid recovery, as contained in Memo no.2211 dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure 9), the petitioner proposes to make a representation before the Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of his claim along with he certified copy of the present order. In case such a representation is filed within a period of four weeks, the respondent no.2 shall consider the grievances of the petitioner as highlighted in his representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Till the representation of the petitioner is not finally disposed of, the impugned order as contained in Memo no.2211 dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure 9) shall be kept in abeyance. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)