IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1870 of 2007 Surajdeo Prasad, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI JAGDISH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PATPURA, P.S. DEHRI, DIUSTRICT- ROHTAS :---PETITIONER. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, SECONDARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DEHRI, DISTRICT, ROHTAS. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATERWAYS CIRCLE, MOHANIA, CAMP BHABHUA DISTRICT, KAIMUR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEHRI DIVISION, DEHRI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner : M/S. Vishwanath Ram & Ajay Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, G.P.-15. ====== 4. 11.08.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Carpenter, Grade-II under Chief Engineer, Dehri. He filed this writ petition questioning the validity of office order bearing Memo No. 569 dated 28.2.2005, Annexure-1 series, whereunder the earlier office order bearing Memo No. 6144 dated 13.11.2003, Annexure- 1/1 cancelling the time bound promotion of the petitioner on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II has been further modified cancelling the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II as according to the authorities petitioner was appointed as a Carpenter Assistant in the Work Charge Establishment and while he remained in the Work Charge Establishment he was promoted on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II with effect from 26.10.1982 2 which was not permissible. During the pendency of the writ petition the Chief Engineer passed another office order bearing Memo No. 1444 dated 30.3.2007, Annexure-17, whereunder petitioner has been granted first and second time bound promotion on the post of Carpenter Assistant with effect from 01.4.1981 and 23.5.1994 with further direction that any amount paid to him in lieu of promotion granted on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II as also the time bound promotion granted on the said post should be recovered. 3. Aforesaid three orders are being challenged by the counsel for the petitioner on two grounds, namely, that before passing the order dated 13.11.2003, 28.2.2005 and 30.3.2007 no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and the three orders one after the other was passed to his detriment directing recovery of the amount paid in lieu of substantive promotion granted on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II with effect from 26.10.1982 and thereafter two time bound promotion of the post of Carpenter Grade-II of the petitioner. Another ground raised for setting aside the three orders is that petitioner having completed five years in the Work Charge Establishment on 01.4.1977 was regularized on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II under orders dated 20.8.1985, Annexure-5 and as he was regularized on 3 the post of Carpenter, Grade-II the impugned order dated 13.11.2003, Annexure-1/1 cancelling his time bound promotion granted on the said post is wholly illegal. It is further stated that subsequent order cancelling the time bound promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II dated 28.2.2005 is also illegal. In view of the aforesaid submission the order dated 30.3.2007, Annexure-17 granting the petitioner time bound promotion on the post of Carpenter Assistant is also illegal as petitioner having been regularized on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II the time bound promotion on the said post should have been given taking into account services rendered by the petitioner on the said post with effect from 26.10.1982 in the light of the circular letter of the State Government dated 27.3.1987, Annexure-6. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid prayer. He states that in terms of the instructions of the State Government promotion to any employee serving in the Work Charge Establishment is not admissible. Petitioner having been appointed as Carpenter Assistant in the Work Charge Establishment could not have been promoted as Carpenter, Grade-II with effect from 26.10.1982. He further submitted that the Government having appreciated that the erroneous promotion in the Work Charge Establishment was being allowed issued 4 direction under letter dated 16.9.1994 to cancel the promotions granted in the Work Charge Establishment but as the services of the petitioner stood regularized in the Regular Establishment on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II with effect from 20.8.1985 orders for cancelling his promotion could not be passed. The authorities, however, realized their mistake in regularizing the petitioner on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II and thereafter passed the first impugned order dated 13.11.2003 cancelling his time bound promotion granted on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II and thereafter order dated 28.2.2005 cancelling his promotion on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II. Having cancelled those promotions petitioner has been allowed time bound promotion on the post of Carpenter Assistant on which he was initially appointed in the Work Charge Establishment. In this connection learned counsel for the State also pointed out that impugned orders having been passed while the petitioner continued in service, this Court should not interfere with the matter as during the service period it is always open for the employer to correct the mistake committed earlier. Counsel for the State further submitted that petitioner having retired in July, 2011 will hardly have to undergo any hardship if the recoveries of the additional amount paid to him on account of 5 erroneous promotion on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II is made from his retiral benefits. 5. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that recoveries in compliance of the impugned order dated 13.11.2003 and 28.2.2005 have already been made from the petitioner and the amount recovered should be refunded to him as petitioner was granted time bound promotion on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II after his regularization on the said post was made under order dated 20.8.1985, Annexure-5. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, it is quite evident that petitioner was engaged as Carpenter Helper in the Work Charge Establishment in the year 1969 whereafter he was granted promotion on the post of Carpenter, Grade-II with effect from 26.10.1982. In the light of the policy decision of the State Government to regularize the services of all those who had completed five years of service in the Work Charge Establishment until 01.4.1977 the services of the petitioner was regularized in the Regular Establishment under Government order dated 20.8.1985, Annexure-5, perusal whereof indicates that thereunder services of the petitioner was regularized on the post of Carpenter Assistant Grade-II as he had put in 16 years of service in the Work Charge Establishment on 6 the same post. Having regularized the service of the petitioner on the post of Carpenter Assistant, Grade- II, the authorities, in my opinion should consider his case for grant of time bound promotion on the said post in the light of the instruction of the State Government contained in circular letter no. 1503 dated 27.3.1987, Annexure-6 taking into account the period rendered by him in the Work Charge Establishment as the order regularizing him on the post of Carpenter Assistant, Grade-II dated 20.8.1985 has not been cancelled by the Government so far. Petitioner having already superannuated from service in July, 2011, in my opinion, the Government should not take any steps for cancelling the order dated 20.8.1985, Annexure-5 regularising him on the post of Carpenter Assistant, Grade-II at this belated stage that too after the superannuation of the petitioner. 7. The three impugned orders dated 13.11.2003, Annexure-1/1, 28.2.2005, Annexure-1 series and 30.3.2007, Annexure-17 having been passed without hearing the petitioner, as such, being violative of the principles of natural justice is being quashed with direction to the Chief Engineer to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of arrears accruing on account of grant of time bound promotion in the light of the order regularizing the service of the petitioner on the post of Carpenter 7 Assistant, Grade-II in the light of the instructions of the State Government contained in circular letter dated 27.3.1987, Annexure-6 and letter no. 2882 dated 6.5.2006, Annexure-16, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Chief Engineer so that the retiral dues of the petitioner is paid within a reasonable time. In the light of this order any further consequential benefit which is likely to accrue to the petitioner should also be considered within the same time. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)