IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.654 of 2010 1. Shakuntala Devi W/O Late Akhileshwar Prasad R/O 'Shakuntala Bhawan' Naya Bigrahpur, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Jakkanpur Distt.- Patna (Bihar) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Accountant General (A & E)-Ii, Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishwasariya Bhawan, Patna (Bihar) 4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Deptt., Magadh Path Anchal, Gaya (Bihar) 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Division No. 1, Gaya (Bihar) 4/ 29/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee questioning the order dated 3.5.2001 cancelling the first time bound promotion given to her deceased husband on 13.9.1989 with retrospective effect. The employee is stated to have superannuated on 31.7.1999 and was deceased on 17.5.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13369/04 disposed off on 2.11.2006 interpreting Rule-157(3) of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 holding that the requirement for passing the accounts examination does not apply to cases for first time bound promotion to submit that the cancellation of the time bound promotion on that ground was not 2 justified. Learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection that the husband of the petitioner did not question the order during his lifetime and therefore the matter had attained finality. Based upon the same, the argument made is of delay in pursuing remedies. The impugned order not only retrospectively cancels the time bound promotion, but directs recovery also. If the employee is deceased, the recovery will naturally affect the widow receiving family pension. Additionally, if the time bound promotion is cancelled, it will again affect the quantum of family pension to which she may be entitled. Therefore, on both grounds the Court does not find the present writ application to be belated and holds that it is a continuing cause of action month to month when the petitioner shall stand deprived of the family pension to that extent. Keeping in mind that the petitioner was a widow whose husband held the post of a correspondence clerk only taking on the might of the State after the death of her husband the Court called upon the State to demonstrate from the recitals of the impugned order that before issuance of the same any 3 show cause was given to the deceased employee. The counter affidavit is also silent on this aspect. Undoubtedly, this question has not been raised in the writ petition and to that extent the respondents can deny their responsibility to answer which the counsel for the State does on the ground that the respondents were not obliged to answer that. The Court finds it very difficult to uphold that contention. When a citizen comes to the Court seeking relief, the State does not stand as an adversarial litigant. The State has a duty to the Court to assist in dispensation of justice. It does not behove the State and does not lie with the State to take trivial technical objections. The onus lies on the State to demonstrate that before issuance of an order having adverse civil consequences against the citizen, it heard the citizen. If the citizen has not raised that question in that case also the State has a bounden duty to answer it and cannot skirt it to visit the widow with adverse consequences as the question is fundamental to the exercise of the power. Only on the ground that the respondents have not been able to show that impugned orders were passed after the compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice either from the recitals of the order or in the counter affidavit the impugned 4 order is wholly unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)