IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.756 of 2002 RAM SAGAR PRASAD,SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAWANI TOLA, P.O. PAWANI, P.S. NASRIGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS……….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OLD SECRETARIAT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-2, DEHRI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR & JHARKHAND, VIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA…………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :- Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy. For the State :- Mr. Anant Kumar (J.C. to S.C.XI) A.G. :- Mr. J. P. Karn. 5. 19.11.08. The petitioner entered service of the Police Department as a Constable. Subsequently in terms of Finance Department Resolution dated 30th December, 1981, based on the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, the respondents granted him Time Bound Promotion first one from 1.4. 1983 and the Second Time Bound Promotion from 10.8. 1988. This was by virtue of his having completed ten years and thereafter, 25 years of service without any promotion on the post. Petitioner derived benefit sanctioned till the date of his retirement. The problem arose when the Service Book of the petitioner was sent for fixation of final pension before the office of the Accountant General, Bihar Patna. Objection was raised by communication dated 1. 2. 2001 (contained in Annexure-1) to the writ application. The objection was that since the petitioner had already been granted substantive promotion on the post of Haveldar may be on a subsequent date, there was no occasion to accord him 2 two Time Bound Promotions by the concerned authority. The benefit derived by the petitioner by virtue of Second Time Bound Promotion was considered to be in breach of Finance Department Resolution of 1981. What emerges from the pleading is that pay-scale given to the petitioner by virtue of Second Time Bound Promotion and that of the Haveldar was the same. Since the pay scale accrued to the petitioner in the year 1988, itself instead of 28. 6. 93, the date of promotion on the post of Haveldar, a case of excess payment and recovery was made out by the respondents. When communication dated 2. 3. 2001 (contained in Annexure-2) was issued to the petitioner which ordered deduction of Rs.34,024/-(Rupees thirty four thousand twenty four only) he filed the present writ application. At the very outset, based on a reading of 1981 Resolution of the Finance Department and the position explained by the respondents in the counter-affidavit the Court has no hesitation in recording that the objection raised by the Accountant General in terms of Annexure -1 was not misplaced. Petitioner can not derive benefit of Second Time Bound Promotion due to stagnation and also be conferred substantive promotion to the next higher post. The purpose of granting Time Bound Promotion was ment for such persons who had no avenues of promotion on the post when they entered service. The Court would not therefore like to interfere with the re-fixation of the pay-scale of the petitioner based on substantive promotion on the post of Haveldar. So far as order of recovery is concerned, keeping in mind, the settled principle on this issue not only by various Division Benches but even Full Bench in case of Ram Binod Singh Vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board, 3 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 398 that a benefit accrued to an employee years ago and without there being any misrepresentation or fraud by him will prevent the State from withdrawing it as it will be unduly harsh to recover the benefit more so at the time of superannuation. The case of petitioner seems to be covered by the above principle. Therefore, order of recovery contained in Annexure-2 to that extent is quashed. Petitioner however, will derive his pensionery benefits on the pay fixed after the objection raised by the Accountant General Bihar, Patna, as per Annexure-1. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. m.p. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)