IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4504 of 2007 Kapildeo Prasad Sinha Son of Late Fateh Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village- Pakari, Police Station- Dumariya Ghat, District- East Champaran, Motihari … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The I.G. Registration, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The District Magistrate cum District Registrar, East Champaran, Motihari 4. The District Sub-Registrar, East Champaran, Motihari ..Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Jagdish Prasad Singh & Yogesh Kumar, Advocates For the State :Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C.10 02/ 13.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner superannuated with effect from 30.11.1985 while serving as Clerk in the office of the District Sub-Registrar, East Champaran at Motihari. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of order No. 36/2006, bearing Memo No. 1760 (R ) dated 17.10.2006, Annexure-10 passed by the District Sub-Registrar, East Champaran at Motihari whereunder second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner under office order No. 12/06 dated 10.3.2006, bearing Memo No. 472 2 dated 10.3.2006 has been cancelled after consideration of the show cause reply of the petitioner dated 14.8.2006 on the ground that the grant of second time bound promotion to the petitioner was contrary to the instructions of the State Government contained in circular letter, bearing No. 54 dated 21.5.1990 whereunder five years time period Kalawadhi was fixed for grant of second time bound promotion from the date of first grant. Petitioner was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981, as such, second time bound promotion in the light of the instruction contained in circular letter No. 54 dated 21.5.1990 became due to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1986 and as the petitioner superannuated with effect from 30.11.1985 before completing the time period Kalawadhi he is not entitled for the said grant. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that circular letter No. 54 dated 21.5.1990 cannot have retrospective operation as Executive instructions are always prospective in 3 nature. 4. I see substance in the submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner and in appreciation thereof office order No. 36/2006, bearing Memo No. 1760(R) dated 17.10.2006, Annexure-10 is quashed. AFR Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)