1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Assisting Counsel to G.P. 5 for the State and Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned Central Government Counsel for the Accountant General.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer on 21.12.1973 and Accounts Clerk in the year 1978. The petitioner passed his Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination in the year 1977 and also passed Additional Accounts Training Examination in the year 1984. The petitioner was granted first time bound promotion vide letter no. 1021 dated 2.7.1985 in the light of the Government Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 with effect from 21.12.1983 and was confirmed vide office order dated 6.11.1987 (Annexure-2). The petitioner superannuated while holding the post of Accounts Clerk in the year 2005.

4. During the processing of his post retiral benefits, an objection was raised by the Accountant General that the petitioner not having passed the departmental accounts examination, had incorrectly been granted the first time bound promotion and which had resulted in an excess payment of Rs. 1,37,000/-. The said information was provided by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department to the Superintending Engineer requesting him to issue guidelines as the petitioner had retired on 28.2.2005. The letter is dated 4.3.2005 (Annexure-3) i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. Nothing further happened in the matter. The petitioner on non-payment of his dues filed the writ petition in question seeking direction for payment of his dues without effecting any recovery in the light of the objection raised by the Accountant General.

5. It so appears that following the objection of the Accountant General and acting upon the request of the Executive Engineer as contained in the letter dated 4.3.2005 (Annexure-3), the pension of the petitioner was initially fixed on the basis of Rs. 6,300/- as his basic salary vide memo dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure-5) of the rejoinder. Subsequently another order of fixation of pension was issued contained in Memo No. 431 dated 5.7.2006 (Annexure-6) revising the pension of the petitioner on the basis of salary of Rs. 7,125/- although the petitioner superannuated while drawing the salary of Rs. 7,375/-. Apart from that, the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,93,818/- though sanctioned by the Accountant General has not been paid to the petitioner.

6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State and its authorities enclosing an order dated 16.3.2005 (Annexure-D) issued by the Superintending Engineer directing the Executive Engineer for effecting recovery of the excess amount drawn by the petitioner by reason of the time bound promotion to the extent of Rs. 1,37,000/- in the light of the Finance Departments circular dated 12.8.1992. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Accountant General expressing similar opinion as expressed by the State authorities.

7. Thus, the issue which requires determination is, whether the respondent authorities of the State have acted within their jurisdiction in withdrawing the time bound promotion granted to the petitioner with effect from 1983 on pretext of not passing the departmental accounts examination.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no prerequisites to a grant of time bound promotion and which primarily has been designed to bail out an employee from the stagnation faced by him in absence of promotional avenues. It is submitted that the said Scheme was framed under the resolution of the Finance Department no. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 and which merely required the employee concerned to be otherwise fit for promotion.

9. Learned counsel in support of his contention relies upon the following decisions of this Court, namely

(1) 1998(3) P.LJ.R. 902 (Abdul Quim Ansari vs. The State of