IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.337 of 2011 CHANDRADEO PRASAD, son of Late Kamleshwari Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Adarsh Nagar, Motibagh, P.O.+P.s. & Distt. Kishanganj. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, New Secretariat Bishwasaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Bishwasraiya Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bishwasraiya Bhawan, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer(Civil), Public Health Engineering Department Purnea. 5. Executive Engineer (Civil), Public Health Engineering Department, Purnea. 6. The Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia. 7. The accountant General, Bihar. -------------- For the Petitioner/s: Mr. BAJARANGI LAL For the Respondent/s: Mr. RAVINDRA KR CHOUBEY SC8 3 01.07.2011 Petitioner retired as back as in the year 1998 as an Assistant Plumber, he had approached the High Court earlier to claim benefit of second time bound promotion in C.W.J.C No. 131 of 2000. On the basis of the direction given by the High Court, Claim of the petitioner was examined and the respondents did come to a considered opinion that the petitioner had a case for grant of benefit of Second time bond promotion, which was granted to him. It is evident from Annexure-6. But its a classical case where what the Government gives by one hand and takes it away from the other. Annexure 7 has been issued now holding that the benefit of first time bound promotion given to the petitioner was wrong. 2 Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure 7 dated 20th July, 2010 has been passed without any notice or show cause and that orders of recovery so made now has to be interfered not only on the ground of Principles of Natural Justice but also in the circumstances that after more than 12 years of retirement such a decision has been taken. It is not open to the State to unilaterally take away the benefit of time bound promotion which was given to him two decades ago. The decisions rendered in such circumstances by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Binod Singh vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anrs., 2007(3) PLJR 398 lay down the parameters in such matters . Law being what it is on the issue obviously its a case of exceeding the jurisdiction on behalf of the respondents to act against the petitioner at this belated stage. Writ is allowed. Annexure-7 is quashed. Pursuant to the same it goes without saying that the petitioner will be paid back every penny which may have been held back or deducted. Prakash ( Ajay kumar Tripathi, J.)