IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18508 of 2009 CHANDRA SHEKHAR UPADHYA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.6. The petitioner was granted first time bound promotion by an order dated 9.7.1991 with effect from 6.8.1979 and second time bound promotion with effect from 8.8.1989. The orders states that the promotion was being granted in accordance with Finance Department circulars and on the recommendation of the establishment committee and that the decision was passed on Government records. He superannuated on 31.10.2000. The promotion came to be cancelled on 16.7.2001 with simultaneous direction for recovery of monetary benefits granted. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10230 of 2001. The writ application was disposed with the following direction:- “The writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.5 the Executive Engineer, Bridge Design Division no.4 to consider the case of the petitioner, after giving him a notice in this regard and after hearing, pass an appropriate order preferably 2 within a period of three months from the date of communication/receipt of a copy of this order.” The impugned order dated 19.6.2009 then came to be passed. It states that the matter had been re- examined in light of the representation submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the recitals contained in the impugned order that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner of the grounds on which the benefit was proposed to be withdrawn as directed by this Court. It appears that even the earlier order dated 16.7.2001 does not state that the petitioner had been asked to show cause before issuance of the order. The impugned order being in teeth of the directions of this Court is not sustainable, it is accordingly set aside. It appears that the issue of his allegedly non-passing the Accounts examination and not being entitled to the promotion were raised on behalf of Accountant General at the time of finalizing his pension. Once the petitioner has been allowed to 3 superannuate, the master servant relationship has been severed the only procedure available to the respondents is under the Bihar Pension Rules. If the respondents have chosen to act contrary to the orders of this Court, they have done so at their peril. The application stands allowed, the order dated 19.06.2009 is set aside. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)