IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8775 of 2006 MAHESH PRASAD SHAHI, son of Shri Shiv Mangal Shahi, resident of village + P.O. Harkaman Shahi, P.S. Minapur, District – Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary cum Commissioner, Water Resources Department, (Irrigation Department) Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Water Resources, Bihar, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Muzaffarpur, Govt. of Bihar. 4. Superintending Engineer, Drainage Investigation Circle, Muzaffarpur and Sitamarhi. 5. Executive Engineer, Drainage Investigation Division, Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur. 6. Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 02. 19.11.2010 A series of orders contained in Annexure-1 by virtue of which the benefit of time bound promotion given to the petitioner earlier was sought to be taken away as well as order for recovery in 25 equal instalments has been passed. This order, according to the petitioner, has been passed after almost 25 years of the benefit having been granted to him. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these orders for the benefit of promotion including time bound came to be conferred upon the petitioner after due deliberation and consideration by the respondents and the petitioner has drawn the benefit of the same all these years without any objection at any point of time. It is only now that despite the approval of the Finance Department or the earlier decision to give benefit of promotion to the petitioner being approved, the respondents have taken an objection that the necessary time period was not adhered to while granting benefit. Stand of the State is that petitioner had already been given 2 substantive promotion to the post of Draftsman, Grade-II and time bound promotion ought not to have been given to him before completion of 10 years from the date of such a promotion. Whatever be the background under which the impugned orders may have been passed, but law being what it is, keeping the facts into consideration that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit because of the concerted decision of the respondents for two decades and half, it would be difficult for this Court to justify or certify the correctness of the orders by which the benefit of time bound promotion has been taken away and recovery ordered to be made. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the ratio decided in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Rameshwar Prasad Verma reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 451, which is a Division Bench decision in the similar background, as well as the case of Anand Kumar Jha and another v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 172. Law being what it is, the stand of the respondents taken in the counter affidavit does not have the overriding effect over the legal position. If there was omission on the part of the concerned authority while granting or conferring benefit to the petitioner at the relevant time it ought to have been corrected within the reasonable time frame. 25 years is a long time to permit any kind of modification. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-1 series are quashed. Direction is given to the respondents to refund the money if 3 it has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner since impugned orders came to be passed in 2004 onwards. The writ application is allowed in terms of the above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)