Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 11-12-95 passed by the Director of Industries, bihar, Patna (respondent No.4) as well as the order dated 4-1-96 of the General manager, District Industries Centre (respondent No.5) whereby and whereunder the benefit of first time-bound promotion of the petitioner in the junior selection grade has been cancelled on the plea that he had not passed the final Accounts Examination and further, as a consequence thereof an order has been passed for recovery of the difference of salary paid to him between 31-8-82 and 24-4-89. 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. N. K. Sinha, G. P.3. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner joined his service on 31-8-1972 and claims to have worked satisfactorily without any adverse remark throughout his service-career. The petitioner was granted the benefit of first time-bound promotion with effect from 31-8-82 after completion of ten years of his service in the light of the governmental decision. The order of the said first time-bound promotion of the petitioner, which was passed on 23-6-93 has been annexed as annexure 8 to the reply to counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly, drew the difference of salary on account of the said time-bound promotion. It is stated that the General manager, District Industries Centre, vaishali, also issued a letter of confirmation in regard to the aforesaid first time-bound promotion of the petitioner, vide letter No.824 dated 16.8.95 addressed to the Industries department, Bihar, Patna. 4. It appears that the petitioner passed the final Accounts Examination on 24-4-89. Thus, the Industries Department in reply to the aforesaid letter held that as the petitioner had passed the final Accounts Examination on 24-4-89, the benefits of first time-bound promotion in his case will be due from the date of passing of the final Accounts Examination and not from the completion of ten years of his service. Accordingly, the impugned orders were issued denying the benefit of first time-bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date when he completed ten years of satisfactory service. 5. Accordingly, the impugned orders were issued denying the benefit of first time-bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date when he completed ten years of satisfactory service. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said impugned orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and violative of the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, several persons have availed the benefit of time-bound promotion as per the Finance Department letter No.10770 dated 30-12-81 only on the basis of completion of ten years of their service without passing the final Accounts examination. In this regard instances have been given in various paragraphs of the writ-petition. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned G. P.3 appearing for the respondents has submitted that due to non-passing of the final Accounts Examination on or before the date of time-bound promotion given to him earlier, the petitioner was not entitled for the same only on account of completion of ten years of service from that date and accordingly, the impugned orders cancelling the said time-bound promotion granted to him earlier have been passed. He submitted that under rule 157 (j) of the Bihar boards Miscellaneous Rules a government servant is not entitled for grant of time-bound promotion even in junior selection grade and senior selection grade without passing of the final accounts Examination. This aspect was considered by me in an earlier case of jadunath Verma V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 19% (1) P. L. J. R.750. In para 14 of the said judgment the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel appearing in the said case was rejected. In the said case, while considering the scope of Rule 157 of the said Rules, it was held that prior to its amendment in April, 1985, whereby clause (j) was incorporated, the Rule only required passing of the Accounts examination before one could be considered for promotion to Upper division. There was no such requirement that one must pass accounts Examination before his promotion to either of the two selection grades or to the super-time-grade. This requirement was introduced in the said Rules only in April, 1985. There was no such requirement that one must pass accounts Examination before his promotion to either of the two selection grades or to the super-time-grade. This requirement was introduced in the said Rules only in April, 1985. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the said case, one who became eligible for grant of time-bound promotion after completion of the period prescribed under 1981 governmental decision, in my opinion, he cannot be denied the benefit of the same on such plea that the Government servant had not passed the accounts Examination particularly when it is not the case of the respondents that the aforementioned amendment in rule 157 of the said Rules was made effective from a restrospecitve date. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the time-bound promotion granted to the petitioner, in the junior selection grade, vide order contained in Annexure-8 and thus, the impugned orders cancelling the said promotion cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the writ application succeed and the impugned orders are quashed. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.