IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8661 of 2005 RAM AWATAR SHARMA, son of late Laxuman Sharma, resident of Mohalla- West Panch Mandir, Bhagwan Bazar, Police Station & District – Chapra. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, Finance (Personal Claim and Fixation Cell), Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Executive Engineer, Tube-well, Chapra Division, Chapra. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. ----------- 03. 30.08.2010 Petitioner has challenged Annexure-5 which is dated 27.10.2004. This order has come to be passed on the basis of an earlier direction issued by the High Court to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of increment for three years by passing a reasoned order. The said reasoned order is under challenge now by virtue of which the claim of increment between the period 20.4.1990 to 19.4.1993 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to pass departmental examination within three years of the benefit of promotion given to him. Admitted position is that the petitioner passed the examination in February, 1994. Issue of grant of benefit of increment and promotion due to non-passing of departmental examination was earlier considered in the case of Najmul Hassan (CWJC No.5209 of 1997). The detailed order passed by the learned single Judge is on record as Annexure-1. Taking into consideration the said decision and the parameters laid down 2 therein it was mandatory for an employee to pass the departmental examination within three years. Since the petitioner has failed to do so, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for increment cannot be faulted. The reason given in the impugned order seems to be sound and correct. No benefit can accrue to the petitioner in light of Annexure-5 read with Annexure-1. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)