Judgment 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and S.C. XIX representing the State. 2. The petitioner is a retired Government employee. He seeks to challenge .the order passed by the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna under his memo no. 824, dated 19.3.2005 by which he rejected the petitioners representation, submitted in pursuance of an earlier direction of the Court, to grant him the benefit of crossing efficiency bar with effect from 21.8.1986 and the first timebound promotion with effect from 21.7.1991 and to pay him the consequential monetary benefits. 3. In the impugned order, the Agriculture Production Commissioner noticed that the petitioner retired from service on 31.8.1994 and made an application for exemption from passing the departmental examination on 15.10.1996. He further observed that in accordance with circular no. 4678, dated 15.5.1992 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, any exemption from passing the departmental examination would be effective from the date an order was passed in that regard. He, therefore, held that in such circumstances, there, was no occasion to grant him exemption from passing the departmental examination as he had already retired from service. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Agriculture Production Commissioner confined his consideration only to Annexure-4C to the earlier writ petition, that was a copy of the representation, dated 15.10.1997. Had he looked into the departmental records, he would have found that an application for exemption from passing the departmental examination was submitted by the petitioner and duly forwarded by the District Agriculture Officer, East Champaran at Motihari vide memo no. 1141, dated 17.9.1987 (Annexure-3). The petitioners application for exemption from passing the departmental examination remained unattended and no order was passed on it till his retirement from service. It would be, therefore, unjust to reject his request for the grant of exemption on the ground that he made the request after retirement. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in a number of cases, promotions were allowed after granting exemption from passing departmental examination after the concerned employees had retired from service. In this regard, he invited the Courts attention to Annexure-4 which is an order, dated 18.7.1994 granting time-bound promotions. By this order, one of the deceased employees had also been granted promotion. 6. In this regard, he invited the Courts attention to Annexure-4 which is an order, dated 18.7.1994 granting time-bound promotions. By this order, one of the deceased employees had also been granted promotion. 6. I find substance in the submissions made by the Counsel and I am satisfied that the order of Agriculture Production Commissioner does not take into account all the material facts and circumstances and it is, therefore, unsustainable. The order, dated 19.3.2005 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to him for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 7. It is expected that a final order in this regard will be passed within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Office of the Agriculture Production Commissioner. 8. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.