JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has two fold grievance; (1) that recovery of alleged excess amount paid to him on account of grant of time bound pay-scales prior to 28.07.2005, when his promotion order was rejected on his request, is unlawful and against the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 and (2) that the stand taken by the State-respondents that since on 28.07.2005 the promotion order of the petitioner was cancelled on his request and said cancellation was subject to the condition that the petitioner will not lay any claim for his promotion in future, as such he is not entitled to be considered for promotion even after he is now willing to be considered for promotion, is absolutely unreasonable and does not have any rational. 3. The petitioner for redressal of his grievances had earlier filed writ petition bearing No. 6149 (SS) of 2011 which was finally disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 08.09.2011, whereby appropriate authority was directed to take a decision on the petitioner's representation. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2011, passed by this Court, the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow has passed an order dated 24.01.2012 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.07.2005 in so far as it puts a condition that he will not lay any claim for his promotion in future. He has further challenged the audit objection as is contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. 5. It appears that the petitioner while working on the post of Draftsman was granted the benefits of time bound pay-scale prior to his promotion on the post of Chief Draftsman on 10.06.2005. On account of the fact that the petitioner was suffering from fracture in his leg and also for certain family reasons, he made an application on 24.06.2005 stating therein that his promotion be cancelled taking into account the fact that the petitioner had been suffering from fracture in his leg and also that the petitioner had a disabled child to take care of. The aforesaid request made by the petitioner was considered and accepted by the Consolidation Commissioner who had passed an order dated 28.07.2005 with the condition that he will not have any claim for promotion on the post of Chief Draftsman in future. Thus, the petitioner did not join on the post of Chief Draftsman and kept on working on the post of Draftsman. 6. It has been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2011, on some audit objection, recovery from the salary of the petitioner was made of some amount paid to him on account of grant of time bound pay-scale prior to 10.06.2005. 7. The petitioner, when recovered from his ailment and family problems, made a prayer to the competent authority by making an application on 21.10.2008 that he may now be promoted to the post of Chief Draftsman. Instead of considering the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Draftsman pursuant to his application dated 21.10.2008, the concerned authority ordered for recovery of some amount paid allegedly in excess to him on account of grant of time bound pay scales prior to his promotion made on the post of Chief Draftsman i.e. prior to 10.06.2005 which was declined by the petitioner for the reasons of ailment and family problems. 8. There are two questions to be considered by the Court, as observed above. 9. The petitioner was granted benefits of time bound pay-scale prior to his promotion made on the post of Chief Draftsman i.e. prior to 10.06.2005. At the relevant point of time when the petitioner was granted the benefits of time bound pay-scale and selection grade etc., various Government Orders regulated the said benefit. The State Government accordingly issued a Government Order dated 20.08.2004 based on earlier Government Orders regulating the time bound pay-scales. The said Government Order dated 20.08.2004 has provided certain explanations. The Clause 7 in the said Government Order dated 20.08.2004 relates to the issue that in case an employee is granted one increment in pay as benefit of selection grade and is also granted promotional pay-scale and he is thereafter actually promoted on the next higher post and if he declines to accept the said promotion on the higher post, what would be the position of the time bound pay-scale. Clarifying the said issue, the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 clearly states that since the provision for grant of time bound pay-scales has been made only with a view to remove the stagnation and to provide the benefits equivalent to the benefits available to two promotional avenues in the service of an employee, as such if the employee is actually promoted on the higher post and he declines to accept the higher post on promotion, he is dis-entitled to be given the benefits of time bound pay-scale and hence the benefits of time bound pay-scale will not be payable to such an employee from the date he is actually promoted to the next higher post. 10. Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 is quoted below: - 7-le;eku osrueku ds vUrZxr lsysD'ku xzsM ds ykHk ds : i esa ,d osruo`f) rFkk oS;fDrd izksUurh; osrueku vuqeU; gksus ds mijkUr okLrfod inksUufr gksus ij izksUufr ij tkus ls bUdkj djus okyksa dks le;eku osrueku dh vuqeU;rk D;k gksxh \ le;eku osrueku dh O;oLFkk fdlh deZpkjh dks lsok esa o`f)jks/k (Stagnation) ls cpkus ds fy, mls mldh lEiw.kZ lsokof/k esa fu/kkZfjr 'krksZ ds v/khu nks inksUufr;ksa ds lerqY; oS;fDrd izksUurh; osruekuksa dk ykHk vuqeU; djkus ds mÌs'; ls dh xbZ gSa A vr,o okLrfod inksUufr gksus ij izksUufr ds in ij tkus ls bUdkj djus okys deZpkjh ds ekeysa esa lsok esa o`f)jks/k ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSa A inksUufr ij tkus ls bUdkj djus ds dkj.k lEcfU/kr deZpkjh le;eku osrueku O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr vuqeU; ykHkksa dk ik= ugha jg tkrk] vr,o le;eku osrueku O;oLFkk ds vUrZxr iwoZ esa mls vuqeU; djk;s x;s ykHk inksUufr dh frfFk ls ns; ugha gksaxsA 11. The aforesaid Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 clearly and in unambiguous terms stipulates that in case an employee who has been earlier granted time bound pay-scale declines to accept the promotion on next higher post, he dis-entitles himself to be given the benefits of the time bound pay-scale. However, the other stipulation of Clause 7 of the said Government order dated 20.08.2004 is that in such a situation an employee will not be granted the benefits of the time bound pay-scale from the date he is actually promoted on the next higher post. However, the other stipulation of Clause 7 of the said Government order dated 20.08.2004 is that in such a situation an employee will not be granted the benefits of the time bound pay-scale from the date he is actually promoted on the next higher post. The said Government Order nowhere provides that the amount of the benefits of time bound pay-scales which have already been availed by the employee prior to the date of promotion, will be recovered from him. The Consolidation Commissioner while passing the order dated 24.01.2012, though has taken into account the provision of Government Order dated 20.08.2004 and has also noticed Clause 7 of the said Government Order, however, it appears that he has completely mis-read and mis-understood the provision contained therein. The Consolidation Commissioner while passing the order dated 24.01.2012 has taken note of the provision of Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 to justify the recovery made from the salary of the petitioner, however, he has completely ignored the provision contained in Clause 7 of the said Government Order which unambiguously provides that the benefits of time bound pay scale, in a situation where an employee is actually granted promotion to the next higher post, will not be payable only from the date of promotion and its inevitable result would be that the employee, though, would not be given the benefits of time bound pay-scale from the date he is actually promoted to the next higher post, however, the amount paid to such an employee prior to his promotion which he declines, is not recoverable. 12. Thus, from a bare reading of the provision contained in Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 20.08.2004, the reasoning given by the Consolidation Commissioner while justifying the recoveries made from the salary of the petitioner of the amount paid to him prior to his promotion dated 28.07.2005 cannot be permitted to be sustained. 13. As regards other grievance of the petitioner, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was promoted on the next higher post of Chief Draftsman on 10.06.2005. However, on his request made in the application dated 24.06.2005, the promotion order was cancelled by the Consolidation Commissioner by means of order dated 28.07.2005. 13. As regards other grievance of the petitioner, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was promoted on the next higher post of Chief Draftsman on 10.06.2005. However, on his request made in the application dated 24.06.2005, the promotion order was cancelled by the Consolidation Commissioner by means of order dated 28.07.2005. The reason given in the application declining the promotion was that he was suffering from fracture in his leg and also that he had to take care of his child who was handicapped. The Consolidation Commissioner while passing the order dated 28.07.2005 had taken into account the situation under which the petitioner had requested to decline the promotion on the post of Chief Draftsman and had thus accepted the prayer of the petitioner. However, while accepting the prayer of the petitioner, a condition was imposed that the petitioner would never ever claim promotion on the next higher post in future. 14. In my considered opinion, putting such a condition while accepting the request made by the petitioner for declining the promotion, cannot be justified; the same being absolutely unreasonable and irrational. Keeping in view the personal situation and sometimes even family situations, the employee on his promotion, may not be in a position to accept the same and, therefore, he exercises his option only to his detriment which may result not only in pecuniary loss to him but also in loss of his status for the reason that higher post certainly carries higher status as well. In such a situation, in case a government employee over comes his difficulties in which earlier he had declined promotion, he can always claim promotion in future, in case he is otherwise eligible. 15. Denying the right of consideration for promotion for all times to come to a government employee, in my considered opinion, does not bear any rationale. Thus, the reason indicated in the impugned order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Consolidation Commissioner for not considering the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post of Chief Draftsman, in my considered opinion, is also not tenable. 16. For the reasons disclosed hereinabove, the writ petition deserves to be and is allowed. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, as is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 16. For the reasons disclosed hereinabove, the writ petition deserves to be and is allowed. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, as is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The condition imposed in the order dated 28.07.2005 to the extent that the petitioner would not lay any claim for his promotion in future is also hereby quashed. 18. The Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow is directed to reconsider the entire matter of the petitioner regarding his grievances relating to recoveries made from his salary and also relating to his promotion to the next higher post of Chief Draftsman afresh in accordance with law and in view of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall also be communicated to the petitioner. So far as the claim of the petitioner for Assured Career Progression (ACP) is concerned, the same shall also be considered by the Consolidation Commissioner strictly in accordance with extant Government Orders, Rules and Regulations. 19. There will be no order as to costs.