Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing office order dated 19.04.2005, issued by the Agriculture Director, Bihar, Patna i.e., the Respondent No.2, whereby and whereunder Second Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1981 has been cancelled. It is further prayed to restore the Second Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1981.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Wheel Operator by the Respondent No.4, vide memo dated 21.06.1955 and then he had joined the said post on 01.07.1955. The Director Administration, Agricultural, Bihar, Patna

vide memo dated 29.04.1972, granted promotion to the petitioner on the post of Plant Protection Supervisor and while working on the said post, the petitioner superannuated with effect from 28.02.1993. The Respondent No.2 had then granted Second Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1981, vide memo dated 08.10.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.580/- Rs.860/-. It is submitted that wrongly the said scale was mentioned as Rs.1320/- Rs.2040/- which had then stood rectified vide Corrigendum dated 07.03.2004. Nonetheless, the Respondent No.2 vide memo dated 19.04.2005, has cancelled the Second Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 08.10.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that withdrawal of Second Time Bound Promotion after 24 years on the basis of objection raised by the Finance Department, Bihar, Patna is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the aforesaid memo dated 08.10.1999 has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing, much less issuance of any show cause to the petitioner herein, hence the impugned order dated 19.04.2005 is fit to be set aside.

3. Per contra the learned counsel for the Respondent- State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case that the order dated 19.04.2005 has been challenged after a decade, hence the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, alone. It is further submitted that the Second Time Bound Promotion was given by the Respondent No.2 vide memo dated 26.05.1999 provisionally, which was rectified by a Corrigendum letter dated 08.10.1999 and 07.03.2004, respectively. It is also submitted that upon the opinion of the Finance Department, Bihar, Patna, the Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned order dated 19.04.2005, cancelling the Second Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner vide order dated 26.05.1999, hence there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 19.04.2005.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record, from which it is apparent that though the petitioner was granted Second Time Bound Promotion, vide memo dated 26.05.1999 with effect from 01.04.1981, however, after a lapse of considerable time, the same has been cancelled vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2005, which is patently illegal, not only in view of the fact that no opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to put forth his defence, prior to passing of the impugned order dated 19.04.2005, but the said order dated 19.04.2005 has been passed, cancelling the Second Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 26.05.1999, much after the petitioner superannuated on 28.02.1993, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Moreover, the law regarding recovery is no longer res integra and has been well settled in a catena of decisions reported in (2009)3 SCC 475 (Syed Qadir vs. State of Bihar); (1995) Suppl.1 SCC 80 (Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana); (1994) 2 SCC 52 (Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India) ; (1997) 6 SCC 139 (B.Ganga Ram vs. Regional Joint Director); (2006) 11 SCC 492 (Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar) ; (2000) 10 SCC 99 (Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bijay Bhadur