JUDGMENT B.M. Lal, C.J. & S. K. Singh, J. - This appeal is directed against an• order dated 28.9.95 whereby the learned single Judge quashing Annexure-3 directed the appellant-Bihar State Road Transport Corporation for payment of salary to the appellant in the pay scale of Rs. 550-560. The same was approved in the year 1987 and was granted retrospectively with effect from 1981 but financial benefit was only granted with effect from 12.9.1993. 2. The only question involved in this appeal is as to whether without observing the principle of natural justice, the promotion on higher pay scale approved and granted could be recalled or revoked unilaterally after a lapse of pretty long time, i.e., 7 years. 3. Admittedly, the employee of the Corporation was promoted to the higher post and as such, higher pay scale was approved by the competent authority in the year 1987 and was granted retrospectively with effect from 1981, though it was specifically mentioned in the said order that the financial benefit would be granted to him with effect from 12.9.1983. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Corporation that due to mistake the higher pay scale was granted and no sooner it came to the notice of the authorities of the Corporation the same was revoked. By that time the Respondent had already retired from service. Thus no opportunity of hearing could be granted to the respondent, before passing 'of the said order. 5. The learned single Judge by the impugned order repelling the submission of the Corporation allowed the writ petition by quashing Annexure-3, inter alia, on the ground that no opportunity of being heard• was afforded and the same violates the principles of natural justice. 6. No doubt, learned counsel, in support of his contention has referred to the a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of the District Collector and others VS. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in 1990 (3) Supreme Court Cases 685, wherein their Lordships have held that due to mistake the appointment is made, the same can be revoked. 7. This case is distinguishable on many folds. Firstly, the promotion was approved in the year 1987 and was granted with effect from 1981 and the same was revoked in the year 1994, i.e., after a lapse of seven years and after the respondent had retired. 7. This case is distinguishable on many folds. Firstly, the promotion was approved in the year 1987 and was granted with effect from 1981 and the same was revoked in the year 1994, i.e., after a lapse of seven years and after the respondent had retired. By lapse of such a long period, the respondent has acquired right and also earned efficiency bar. Thus, the doctrine of condonation applies. It is not that the respondent by suppressing or playing fraud upon the Corporation has secured his promotion on higher pay scale. The case as set out by the Corporation is that due to some mistake committed by themselves, the promotion was granted. Thus the said plea after lapse of such a long time is not available to the Corporation, besides it hits the principle of natural justice. 8. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.