ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2010 cancelling his time bound promotion for not having passed the departmental examination. The petitioner was granted time bound promotion on 6.11.1992 with effect from 30.10.1991. The impugned order cancels the same and directs recovery on 11.5.2011. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has superannuated from service in February, 2012. The recovery is going to be from his pension resources when he has no other source of survival. There are no allegations of any fraud or misrepresentation by him to obtain the promotion. The petitioner has passed the departmental examination. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the recovery has been ordered before superannuation (which is to take effect after superannuation). 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has passed the departmental examination in 2010 and therefore the authorities have considered him for grant of 1st, 2nd and 3rd A.C.P. and passed appropriate orders on 1.2.2012. There is no infirmity in the order dated 14.1.2010 as till the date of that order he had not passed the departmental examination. The promotion on 30.10.1991 was clearly erroneous without passing the examination. Relying on a Division Bench judgment reported in 2004 (3) P.L.J.R. 3 (Bihar School Examination Board & Ors. Vs. Man Bahadur) it is submitted that even if there was no fraud or misrepresentation, but the benefit came to be granted by a bona fide mistake committed by the office, the employer can take steps for recovery. 6. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. The ratio of a judgement is based upon the same. The ratio of the judgement cannot be applied in the abstract. The Division Bench noticed the judgment in (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18 (Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, related to passing of departmental exam for grant of increments. Distinguishing the same reliance was placed on the facts in AIR 1997 S.C. 2776 (V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director & Ors.), (1998) 9 SCC 595 (State of Punjab vs. Devinder Singh) and (2000) 9 SCC 187 (Union of India vs. Sujatha Vedachalam) that if pay was wrongly granted due to miscalculation it could be recovered. 7. Distinguishing the same reliance was placed on the facts in AIR 1997 S.C. 2776 (V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director & Ors.), (1998) 9 SCC 595 (State of Punjab vs. Devinder Singh) and (2000) 9 SCC 187 (Union of India vs. Sujatha Vedachalam) that if pay was wrongly granted due to miscalculation it could be recovered. 7. In (2000) 10 SCC 99 (Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bijay Bahadur) it was observed that recovery of the present kind after 14 to 15 years, especially when the departmental examination had been cleared, though late, no recovery could be effected. 8. The money that was paid to him has obviously not been stored, but spent. If the respondents took a long time from 6.11.1992 to 14.1.2010 to discover the error, it needs no further discussion that somebody was receiving his salary in office without working. The need for the respondents was simultaneously to identify such person, proceed against him also and then direct recovery against the petitioner. Should the respondents be of the opinion that the recovery was still required to be effected, fairness on their part lies in proceeding against the concerned who facilitated the same simultaneously. The standards by which the respondents profess to act shall be the standards by which the Court shall examine their conduct. The counter affidavit is completely silent on how the wrong promotion came to be granted and why it came to be discovered after such long years. The counter affidavit clearly attempts to protect those who were not working. The respondents were restrained from making any recoveries from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order. 9. The writ application is allowed.