IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12368 of 2008 RAJ KUMAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE MADAN LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHOWK CHABER GALI, P.O. & P.S. JHAUGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MECHANICAL DIVISION, PATNA. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MECHANICAL DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 6. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 19.5.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by an order by which his promotion to the post of Mechanic Grade II under the Road Construction Department granted in 1997 has been cancelled after his retirement from services. This matter came to light when a person similarly situated to the petitioner filed CWJC No. 2676 of 2007 which was disposed of by order dated 18.3.2008. The said order indicates that the writ petitioner Abhinandan Sharma was claiming that his promotion has been cancelled after his retirement which is arbitrary and unreasonable and further challenged the order of recovery with respect to the payment made between the period 1997 till the date of cancellation i.e. 14.5.2008. Amongst others one of the ground taken in the writ petition was that one Gopal Goswami and this petitioner had similarly been granted and promoted as Senior Mechanic Grade II on ad hoc basis on 29.5.1997. It was argued that these two persons have been allowed pensionary benefits as also arrears of salary in the scale of Senior Mechanic Grade II. It was submitted that the petitioner should be given the same relief as the aforesaid two persons. 2 After the order of this Court, a letter was issued cancelling the promotion granted to the petitioner vide annexure-7 on 14.5.2008. The only question in this case is whether the order of recovery contained in the interlocutory application dated 2.7.2009 is justified. This question has been settled by a full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Singh & Ors. Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 wherein the Court has held that if the grant of promotion, scale etc. has been found to be because of a mistake, clear, plain and simple leading to the wrong grant of increment, time bound promotion or wrong fixation of payment, recovery may be justified from a superannuated employee, whereas if the grant of promotion etc. is due to wrong interpretation of law, there is good reason for ordering that the amount should not be recovered. In the present case it would appear from paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit that there was no regular cadre in the Work Charge Establishment and as such there was no hierarchy of post of promotion in Work Charge Establishment and as such the order of recovery has been issued. The only thing that can be said in favour of the petitioner is that the recovery should be made in easy installments over span of ten years. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)