IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4166 of 2007 Krishna Gopal Prasad, SON OF LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULWARIA, P.O.- BARAUNI, P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI, AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEAD CLERK, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS DIVISION, BEGUSARAI :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWASHRAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION NO. 2, RURAL DEVELOLPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS CIRCLE, DARBHANGA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS DIVISION, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 7. :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukharjee, Senior Advocate. Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Raj Kamal, A.C. to S.C.-9. ====== 2. 30.06.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner who served as Typist-Clerk in the Works Division of the Rural Engineering Organization at Begusarai is aggrieved by the office order bearing Memo No. 538 dated 10.05.2003, Annexure-1, whereunder time bound promotion granted to him has been cancelled. He is also aggrieved by the office order bearing Memo No. 413 dated 06.05.2005, Annexure-2, whereunder the monetary benefit allowed to the petitioner pursuant to the grant 2 of time bound promotion has been directed to be recovered. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under office order bearing memo no. 1779 dated 23.06.1988, Annexure-3 he was allowed time bound promotion with effect from 06.03.1984. Aforesaid grant of time bound promotion was cancelled under impugned order dated 10.05.2003 on the ground that on the date of grant he had not passed the departmental Accounts Examination. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that holding/conduction of departmental Accounts Examination was/is the responsibility of the authorities and as departmental Accounts Examination was not being organized he could not appear in the said examination. Petitioner, however, was otherwise qualified for such grant and in consideration of the said fact he was allowed time bound promotion under office order bearing Memo No. 1779 dated 23.06.1088, Annexure-3. Later when the department organized the departmental Accounts Examination petitioner appeared in the examination conducted in the year 2002 result whereof was declared in the year 2005 and 3 petitioner successfully passed the departmental Accounts examination. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as he has passed the departmental Accounts examination, may be after grant of the time bound promotion, he may not be held responsible for failure of the authorities to organize and conduct the departmental Accounts Examination before such grant. He also submitted that for the period during which he could not pass the departmental Accounts Examination on account of failure of the authorities to hold the examination, such period can always be exempted as the authorities have got power to exempt the government servant from passing the departmental Accounts Examination for being granted time bound promotion. 3. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit but has not disputed the fact that petitioner did pass the departmental Accounts Examination which was conducted in the year 2002 result whereof was declared in the year 2005. Counsel for the State also does not dispute that the authorities did not conduct the departmental Accounts Examination at the 4 relevant time and have got power to exempt the employee from appearing in the departmental Accounts Examination. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I set aside the cancellation order bearing Memo No. 538 dated 10.05.2003, Annexure-1 as also the order bearing Memo No. 413 dated 06.05.2005, Annexure-2, whereunder recovery is being made from the petitioner as the two orders have been passed ignoring the fact that authorities did not conduct the departmental Accounts Examination at the relevant time and that petitioner had appeared in the departmental Accounts Examination conducted in the year 2002 result whereof was declared by the authorities in the year 2005 in which petitioner was successful. The competent authority should consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion from the due date as for the delay in conducting the examination petitioner cannot be held responsible. Appropriate orders in this regard be passed by the respondent authorities, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a 5 copy of this order. In this connection, I may mention that petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2010 and from the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit it does not appear that he ever misused his position as a government servant for obtaining the time bound promotion with effect from 06.03.1984. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)