Judgment (Per: Hon'ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The Letters Patent Appeal has been tiled against the order dated 8.4.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 4323 of 2009 (Avinash Chandra Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) by which the writ petition has been dismissed. 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that he was not given his second time bound promotion as well as two• due A.C.Ps. only on the ground that he had not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination held by the Board of Revenue. The learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the writ petition and the same came to be dismissed. 4. In the present appeal learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the policy of the State Government as contained in Annexure-4 which is the letter dated 12.8.1992 of the Government in which in clause 4(i) it is clearly mentioned that persons who had been granted promotion prior to 1.9.1983 would not be reverted only on the ground that they had not passed such departmental examination. It was further provided that in view of them having already been granted promotion prior to 1.9.1983, their case for further promotion would also not be withdrawn on the ground of them not passing the said examination. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference. Accordingly, we direct that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for his due promotion as well as A.CP. in accordance with law which shall not be denied to him only on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examination. 6. Let the respondents consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before respondent no. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already superannuated. 7. Be that as it may, let the respondents consider the case of the petitioner and if it is found that he was not given his promotion and the A.C.P. only on account of not passing the said departmental examination then the benefit of the same should be granted to him within the aforesaid period. 8. 7. Be that as it may, let the respondents consider the case of the petitioner and if it is found that he was not given his promotion and the A.C.P. only on account of not passing the said departmental examination then the benefit of the same should be granted to him within the aforesaid period. 8. It is needless to say that all consequential benefits shall be paid from such grant of promotion, if found due. 9. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.