Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner is a retired Government employee. He retired from service as Cholera Supervisor on 30.9.2001. At the time of retirement his pay was Rs. 6805.00 . After retirement he was initially allowed provisional pension. His retiral dues were finally settled in 2003 and payments under different heads of retiral dues were made to him. From the pension intimation memo and the D.C.R. Gratuity Payment Order issued in his favour on 4.8.2003 from the office of the. Accountant General it appears that his pension was fixed on the pay of Rs. 6200.00 instead of Rs. 6805.00 , the pay last drawn by him. Further, from the D.C.R. Gratuity Payment Order it appears that from Rs. 1,48,335.00 sanctioned as gratuity payable to him, a sum of Rs. 1,22,600.00 was deducted and the balance amounting to only Rs. 25,735.00 was paid to him. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the action of the concerned authorities in fixing his retiral dues, including pension on a lower pay than the last pay drawn by him and deducting from his gratuity a sum of Rs. 1,22,600.00 . 3. The response of the respondents is quite simple. It is stated that during his service tenure the petitioner was wrongly allowed time bound promotion(s) and consequently he unauthorisedly derived the benefit of higher pay. Discounting the promotion(s) wrongly allowed to him and on a correct fixation of his pay the last pay receivable by the petitioner would be Rs. 6200.00 and this is the legal and valid basis for fixing his retiral dues, including pension. Further, as a result of the wrong promotion(s)/wrong fixation of pay the petitioner has received excess salary as also a small amount in excess of his due as encashment of earned leave. The excess payment made to him amounting to Rs. 1,22,600.00 were recoverable from him gratuity in terms of the written undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of promotion. 4. The relevant facts of the case are brief and simple. The petitioner was appointed as Praganak (Enumerator) in small pox eradication programme on 13.8.1962. On 15.3.1978 he was promoted to the post of Cholera Supervisor. The promotion was given to him as reward for his good work. 5. 4. The relevant facts of the case are brief and simple. The petitioner was appointed as Praganak (Enumerator) in small pox eradication programme on 13.8.1962. On 15.3.1978 he was promoted to the post of Cholera Supervisor. The promotion was given to him as reward for his good work. 5. By resolution No. 10770, dated 30.12.1981 the Government introduced the scheme of time bound promotions w.e.f. 1.4.1981 for those employees who due to stagnation in service were unable to get any promotion on completion of ten years of service or a second promotion on completion of 25 years of service. The petitioner was allowed first time bound promotion and was given the benefit of higher scale w.e.f. 1.4.1981 by letter No. 1032, dated 3.10.1985. He was then allowed a second time bound promotion w.e.f. 13.8.1987 by letter No. 2445, dated 29.5.1990. 6. Both time bound promotions were allowed to the petitioner (the first effective from 1.4.1981 and the second effective from 13.8.1987) reckoning his service on the post Enumerator w.e.f. 13.8.1962. But in granting him the first time bound promotion it was clearly overlooked that the petitioner had got a regular promotion as late as on 15.3.1978 and he was, therefore, not entitled to the first time bound promotion in terms of the time bound promotions scheme framed by the Government. He was of course entitled to the second time bound promotion on completion of his 25 years of service from 13.8.1962, the date of his entry in service. It is, therefore, manifest and clear that though the second time bound promotion was correctly allowed to him w.e.f. 13.8.1987, the first time bound promotion given to him w.e.f. 1.4.1981 was quite unauthorised and as a result of that promotion he wrongly derived the benefit of a higher scale. In the admitted facts of this case there is no escape from this finding. 7. The question that follows next is whether it is permissible to the authority to deduct from the petitioners retiral dues any excess payment made to him on the basis of the wrong promotion. The issue appears to be concluded by a written undertaking given by the petitioner himself. It appears that on introduction of the scheme of time bound promotion, promotions were allowed to all and sundry in a hurry and without examining individual cases in terms of the details of the scheme. The issue appears to be concluded by a written undertaking given by the petitioner himself. It appears that on introduction of the scheme of time bound promotion, promotions were allowed to all and sundry in a hurry and without examining individual cases in terms of the details of the scheme. In many cases promotions, were given in offices at the Mufassil level in anticipation of and subject to the final approval by the Finance Department. In some cases the concerned authorities were sufficiently careful to obtain from the promotee an undertaking that in case the promotion was found to be wrong and illegal the concerned promotee would be liable to refund the excess payment received by him or the excess payment made to him would be recoverable from his retiral dues. The petitioner too had submitted such a written undertaking. A photo state copy of which is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. 8. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner there is hardly anything that can be said in his favour. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, made strenuous submissions and strongly criticised the action of the Government in fixing the petitioners retiral dues on a lower pay and deducting from his gratuity a large amount as excess payment made to him earlier. 10. Mr. Purshottam Kumar Jha submitted that till date the two time bound promotions allowed to the petitioner were not formally cancelled and the decision to fix the petitioners pay at lower rates and to deduct from his gratuity certain amount as excess payment made to him earlier was taken without any notice to him or a participative enquiry giving him an opportunity to place his case. The submission to my mind is too technical to merit any serious consideration. The case was heard on merits on several dates and petitioner was given the fullest opportunity to satisfy this Court that the first time bound promotion allowed to him w.e.f. 1.4.1981 was in accordance with the time bound promotion scheme. Mr. Jha, however, did not make any attempt to justify the grant of promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981. The case was heard on merits on several dates and petitioner was given the fullest opportunity to satisfy this Court that the first time bound promotion allowed to him w.e.f. 1.4.1981 was in accordance with the time bound promotion scheme. Mr. Jha, however, did not make any attempt to justify the grant of promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981. In fact it is impossible to uphold the first time bound promotion given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1981 because of his earlier regular promotion on 15.3.1978 and hence, the pleas that no notice was given to him or that no formal order was issued cancelling the promotion are quite misconceived. In the first place the promotions in question were expressly subject to. approval by the Finance Department. Secondly, once the promotion is found to be illegal and unauthorised it is a simple clerical matter of correcting the petitioners fixation of pay. In this regard, the respondents have brought on record statement showing the excess payments drawn by the petitioner on the basis of the time bound promotion wrongly allowed to him. No error in those statements was pointed out to the Court. But still in case the petitioner is able to find any error in calculation it will be open to him to take up the matter with the departmental authority. 11. Mr. Jha next submitted that the concerned authorities had acted wrongly in recovering the excess payment made to the petitioner from the retiral dues and relied upon the provisions of Rule 65 of the Bihar Finance Rules. The reliance is quite misplaced because the provision of Rule 65 is merely enabling and not a compelling provision. Under that rule the Government cannot be directed to waive recovery in all cases. 12. Mr. Jha next submitted that the petitioner was willing and prepared to forgo the regular promotion that was given to him on 15.3.1978 as reward because if that promotion is taken away then the first time bound promotion given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1981 would be perfectly legal and valid. 13. At the instance of the Court the State counsel got certain calculations made and stated that in case the petitioners regular promotion on 17.3.1978 was to be discounted there would still be an amount of Rs. 88,643.00 recoverable from him. That would give the petitioner a partial relief of about Rs. 13. At the instance of the Court the State counsel got certain calculations made and stated that in case the petitioners regular promotion on 17.3.1978 was to be discounted there would still be an amount of Rs. 88,643.00 recoverable from him. That would give the petitioner a partial relief of about Rs. 30,000.00 but the Government is not willing and prepared to accept that position. In the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is clearly stated that position is not acceptable to the Government (see para-10). 14. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondents, I am unable to see how this Court can issue a positive direction to derecognise a regular promotion granted to the petitioner 25 years ago and thus to completely alter his service record. 15. I the end Mr. Jha relied upon a decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2004 (2) PLJR 730 . I do not see any application of that decision in the facts of this case and to me it appears that the issue of recovery of excess payment made during the service tenure of an employee from his retiral dues stands concluded by a recent bench decision of this Court in Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. V/s. Man Bahadur and Ors., 2004 (3) PLJR 03. The decision in the case of Man Bahadur apples with full force to this case. 16. For the reasons discussed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.