ORDER Reasoned order passed by the respondent-authorities in the light of the direction issued in a bunch of Writ Applications, contained in Annexure – 8, has again become a subject matter of dispute and is being challenged in the present Writ Application. Impugned order is dated 28.02.2011. 2. Petitioners are retired employees of Water Resources Department, who entered service initially as Overseers under the River Valley Project. Subsequently, their nomenclature was changed to Junior Engineers and brought under the Bihar State Subordinate Engineering Service. 3. The first round of litigation was initiated in the background that based on circular dated 28.12.2002 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, a consequential order dated 24.05.2003 was issued by the Water Resources Department, by virtue of which time-bound-promotion granted on the post of Assistant Engineer came to be undone or cancelled after a period of almost 15 years. This had obviously created prejudice and was detrimental to the interest of the petitioners, as there would be fall out on the settled position with regard to their pension etc, which stood settled years ago. 4. When bunch of Writ Applications were filed by large number of persons, a Bench of this Court clubbed all those matters together and decided those Writ Applications in terms of Annexure- 8, dated 29.10.2009. The Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties to the dispute and taking into consideration the various circulars issued by the Departments, including Finance Department, on the question of grant of time-bound-promotion etc. did come to a considered opinion that the reason for cancelling the time-bound-promotion in the year 2003 was uncalled for. There was error apparent in non-consideration of other circulars issued by the State Government with regard to time-bound-promotion, even where substantive promotions had been granted. It was not be an impediment. Those circulars were looked into and reproduced in the said order, contained in Annexure – 8. Various orders, which were issued by the respondents, cancelling the time-bound-promotion, were all set aside and the Court said this in paragraphs 18 to 21: “18. It is however made clear that such promotion to the petitioners cannot be held to be bad on the ground of subsequent Circular dated 28.12.2002. Various orders, which were issued by the respondents, cancelling the time-bound-promotion, were all set aside and the Court said this in paragraphs 18 to 21: “18. It is however made clear that such promotion to the petitioners cannot be held to be bad on the ground of subsequent Circular dated 28.12.2002. Thus, if the respondents are satisfied and can give no reasons in the show-cause notice indicating that time-bound-promotion given to the petitioners were in violation of either main resolution dated 30.12.1981 or its clarificatory Circular dated 7.03.1990 they would issue a fresh show-cause-notice to the petitioners and after eliciting their response within a specified period would pass a final speaking order after meeting the contentions raised in such reply. At the cost of repetition, it is being repeated that the respondents will not cancel time-bound-promotion on the interpretation or direction of the Finance Department in its Circular dated 28.12.2002 inasmuch as all the petitioners had already been granted time-bound-promotion and such circular dated 28.12.2002 being an executive instruction cannot be allowed to have any retrospective operation so as to affect the vested rights of the petitioners which as noted above were given to them under time-bound-promotion scheme in the years between 1992-1997. 19. In the facts of these cases this Court would also hold that though the petitioners will not be subjected to any recovery on account of quashing of the impugned order but they shall also not be entitled for any refund or refixation of their salary and / or pensionary benefits at least till a fresh decision in the manner indicated above is taken by the respondents in the matter of grant of time-bound-promotion to the petitioners. 20. However, respondents must complete this task for determining final status of the petitioners as with regard to grant to grant of time-bound-promotion within a period of six months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order to be filed individually by the petitioners along with his separate representation disclosing their case in brief as also present address for service of such notice on them. Any of the petitioners who would not file a representation along with a copy of this order will not be entitled to claim benefit of this order. 21. Subject to the aforementioned observations and directions and to the extent indicated above, these writ applications are allowed. Any of the petitioners who would not file a representation along with a copy of this order will not be entitled to claim benefit of this order. 21. Subject to the aforementioned observations and directions and to the extent indicated above, these writ applications are allowed. There would be however no order as to costs.” 5. It is in the background of the Order of the Learned Single Judge passed earlier in Annexure- 8 that the respondent-authorities have now issued Annexure- 1, dated 28.02.2011. The net effect of this decision is that the respondent-authorities have gone back to doing what was held by the High Court earlier to be bad in law by virtually reiterating that position. This is the sheet-anchor of the argument of the learned counsel representing the petitioners in the present Writ Application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the various paragraphs as well as circular of the Finance department, which was taken note of by the Learned Single Judge including Annexure- 5, 6 and 7, which have been annexed with the Writ Application. If these circulars are read as a whole, then this stand of the State that wrong time-bound-promotion was granted to these petitioners or similarly situated persons seems to be erroneous through and through. It was in this background that the Learned Single Judge had reproduced the circulars in question which had been ignored or not taken notice of while coming to a decision to undo the benefit of time-bound-promotion after more than 15 years. 7. Even at the cost of repetition and to remind the State as to what was adjudicated and decided by the Learned Single Judge earlier, the observation, as under, of the Learned Single Judge given in paragraphs 10 and 11 having significance is reproduced: “10. Thus from the reading of the aforementioned provision of time-bound-promotion, it would be clear that such time-bound-promotion was to be given from 01.04.1981 to such class of employees who had not earned their first or second promotion on completion of their 10 or 25 years of services respectively. Thus from the reading of the aforementioned provision of time-bound-promotion, it would be clear that such time-bound-promotion was to be given from 01.04.1981 to such class of employees who had not earned their first or second promotion on completion of their 10 or 25 years of services respectively. The Junior Engineers who were promoted as Assistant Engineer in or around in the year 1978 prior to introduction of time-bound-promotion scheme in the year 1981 therefore could not have been deprived the benefit of time-bound-promotion, if they had completed 10 years of services on the post of Assistant Engineers in or around in the year 1988, there would be no difficulty in accepting the submission of learned counsel for the State that if the Junior Engineers had already been given two promotions while holding the post of Junior Engineers they would not be entitled for time-bound-promotion but then it was the decision of the State Government dated 07.03.1990 wherein this aspect was clarified by notifying that calculation of period of 10 years or 25 years had to be made on a specific post (emphasis mine). For clarity, the relevant portion of Circular dated 07.03.1990 is also quoted hereinbelow: - <span class="Hfont"> 1. fdlh ljdkjh lsod dks ftl lEoxZ fo'ks"k esa ;k in fo'ks"k ij dky c¼ izksUufr nsus dk izLrko fopkj.kh; gks ml lEoxZ esa ;k ml in ij ;fn lhèkh fu;qfDr gqbZ gks] rks lEoxZ esa ;k ml ij fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls gh 10 o"kZ ;k 25 o"kZ dh lsok dh x.kuk dh tk;A muds iwoZorhZ lEoxZ ;k in ij dh xbZ lsok dh dkyc¼ izksUufr ds fu;feRr ugha dh tk;sxhA ;fn igys lEoxZ esa lEoxhZ; in ij izksUufr *dkyc¼ izksUufr NksM+dj* feyh gks rks Hkh nqljs lEoxZ esa dkyc¼ izksUufr ns; gksxhA 2. u;s lEoxZ esa dkyc¼ izksUufr nsrs le; ;g ns[kuk vko';d gS fd u;s lEoxZ okys in iqjkus lEoxZ in ls izksUufr dh lhèkh J`a[kyk esa ugha gS vkSj lEcfUèkr ljdkjh lsod dh nl lEoxhZ; in ij lhèkh fu;qfDr gqbZ gS rFkk osru fuèkkZj.k esa izksUufr dk dksbZ ykHk ugha feyk gSA iqjkus in ij izkIr osru dk laj{k.k nsuk izksUufr dk ykHk ugha ekuk tk;sxkA ;fn mi;qZDr 'krZ iwjh gksrh gks vkSj ljdkjh lsod fd fu;qfDr u;s fljs ls gksus ds ckjs esa lekèkku gksus ij gh u;s lEoxhZ; in ij dkyc¼ izksUufr nsus ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 3. ;fn fdlh ljdkjh lsod dks igys lEoxZ esa ;k in ij dkyc¼ izksUufr fey xbZ gks] rks igys vkSj nqljs lEoxZ feyk dj nks ls vfèkd dkyc¼ izksUufr ns; ugha gksxhA 4 ;fn fdlh ekeys esa izFke lEoxZ esa dh xbZ lsok ds vkèkkj ij 10/25 o"kks± dh lsok dh x.kuk djds izFke@f}rh; dkyc¼ izksUufr vuqekU; dj fn;k x;k gks vkSj foÙk foHkkx dh lgefr izkIr dj vkSipkfjdrk;sa iwjh dj yh xbZ gks] rks muds ekeys esa bl vkns'k ds iQyLo:i ;fn vfèkd Hkqxrku dk ekeyk curk gks rks vfèkd Hkqxrku dh olwyh ugha dh tk;sxhA ijUrq muds ekeys ij iw.kZfopkj djus ij ;g ik;k tk; fd u;s lEoxZ esa fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls 10/25 o"kZ rd iwjs ugha gksa] rks nh xbZ izksUufr dk ykHk vc ls cUn dj fn;k tk;] ijUrq 16/25 o"kZ dh lsok u;s lEoxZ esa iwjk gksus dh frfFk ls osru o`f¼ vkfn lfgr dkyc¼ izksUufr dk ykHk feyus yxsxkA 11. These two circulars dated 30.12.1989 and 07.01.1990 which were in operation when the petitioners were given time-bound-promotion and therefore the subsequent clarificatory Circular of the Finance Department dated 28.12.2002 could at best have been made applicable only if it was a clarificatory and not a new innovation. Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that after the time-bound-promotion of the petitioners were already notified and they were drawing the benefit of such time-bound-promotion on account of authenticated orders issued by the Competent Authority, the Finance Department in the name of clarification had issued orders prohibiting time-bound-promotion only in the cadre of Overseers/Junior Engineers who had earned promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.” 8. If the stand of the State was negated by the Learned Single Judge in the background of the earlier circulars of the year 1990 and on wrong premise the 2002 circular was issued by the Finance Department then that can never form the basis for taking away the benefit of first time-bound-promotion from the petitioners or all such persons so situated especially when the same was held to be bad and quashed. 9. 9. The Court has gone through the speaking orders, contained in Annexure – 1, as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, there are basically repetition of stand which they have taken before the Learned Single Judge without any legal infirmity emerging in the rational of the Learned Single Judge, who had based his decision on some more clarificatory circulars of the Finance Department issued in the year 1989 and 1990. 10. If the decision of the Learned Single Judge was not assailed by the State before the next higher forum then rational and the reasoning given by the Learned Single Judge will still come into play in the fresh adjudication, which was required to be made with regard to all those individuals who were directly affected by the decision of the respondents to take away the benefit of first time-bound-promotion. Mere repetition is not going to strengthen the case or justify their stand that the benefit of first time-bound-promotion was wrongly given to the petitioners. 11. To sum, the Court rejects the stand of the State as well as the reasoning given by the respondent in the impugned order contained in Annexure – 1, because they seem to be in teeth of the adjudication already made by the Learned Single Judge. The respondent-authorities do not have the powers to wish away or ignore an adjudication and finding already given by the High Court on the issue, by way of Annexure- 8 to the Writ Application. 12. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, is correct in saying that Annexure- 1 requires to be interfered with as the speaking order is in teeth of the adjudication and the finding given by the Learned Single Judge earlier. Annexure- 1, therefore, is quashed. Writ is allowed. ?