IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10274 of 2005 NARENDRA PRASAD SINGH, son of Shri Ramashish Singh, Economic Investigator, District Industry Centre, Jehanabad, District – Jehanabad and of Mufti Mohalla Nakhas, at + P.O. Hajipur, P S – Hajipur Sadar, District – Vaishali. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Industry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The General Manager, District Industry Centre, Jehanabad, District – Jehanabad (Bihar). ----------- 06 29.9.2010 Petitioner has now superannuated which is stated to be from 30th June, 2008. When he was served with a communication dated 8th June, 2005 contained in Annexure-7, he moved the High Court for its quashing because the decision taken against the petitioner had civil consequences for him. His pay was re-fixed and the recovery of Rs.1,14,786 was sought to be made which was stated to be excess payment made to the petitioner on a higher pay scale fixed in the year 1988. Contention of the petitioner is that after having entered the service of the respondents, petitioner came to be granted time-bound promotion by his superiors along with similarly situated persons, who too were extended the same benefit. Based on that order of time-bound promotion petitioner drew his salary for a long long time till the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 came to be issued. According to the petitioner, this order was passed without any opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner in this regard. In the counter affidavit a stand has been taken that the 2 petitioner had been given the benefit of time-bound promotion illegally and in breach of the resolution of the Finance Department, which is Resolution No.10770 dated 30.12.1981. In terms of para 11 of the said resolution if the petitioner had been granted benefit of substantive promotion, he could not be given benefit of time-bound promotion more so if he had not completed 10 years of service after grant of regular promotion. The circular is there. Provisions are there. The applicability of the same will have to be tested in light and background under which benefit was conferred upon the petitioner. The decision to grant him time-bound promotion was taken by his superiors, no doubt subject to approval of the Finance Department but then if the Finance Department had taken 16 years to discover that a wrong benefit had been given to the employee and the employee had withdrawn excess pay then this exercise ought to have been carried out within a reasonable time frame, specially in the background that it is not pleaded in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had any role in grabbing the benefit of promotion in any manner. Respondents have freedom to scale down the pay scale to which petitioner is actually entitled to after taking away the benefit of first time bound promotion given to him but only for the purpose of fixing his pension etc.. So far as recovery is concerned, looking at the settled proposition of law, not only of the High Court but even of the Supreme Court the same cannot be 3 allowed. The writ application is disposed of with the benefit extended to the petitioner in terms of the present order. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)