IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15749 of 2005 BIMAL PRASAD ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 8.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the recent decision rendered in the case of Daya Shanker Singh vrs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 220 this Court has difficulty in accepting the plea of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent could not change the date of benefit of time bound promotion given to petitioner from 1.4.1981 to 23.12.1992 i.e. the date when the petitioner passed the Accounts Examination. Learned Single Judge has categorically held that passing of the examination is a must both for the purpose of substantive promotion as well as time bound promotion. The law being what it is annexure-5 does not require any interference. However taking cue from the said decision one thing is clear that no recovery can be made for the period in question. This is also based on the ratio decided in the case of Daya Shanker Singh (supra). The respondents however will be free to fix the retiral dues and other benefits on the basis of the rework date of time bound promotion except the recovery part of excess payment to the petitioner as per the principle laid down in the above case governing the issue. This writ application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)