ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has assailed the office order no. 21 dated 31st March, 2005 (Annexure - 2) issued by respondent no. 4, Conservator of Forest, Departmental Circle, Hazaribagh, whereby his First Time Bound Promotion granted to him vide order no. 141 dated 9th October, 1990 with effect from 21st December, 1989 has been cancelled. Petitioner has also sought quashing of the office order no. 18 dated 28th June, 2005 issued by respondent no. 6, D.F.O. State Trading Division Hazaribagh as also the order no. 19 of the same date (Annexure - 5) whereunder an order has been passed for recovery of the amount paid in excess on that account @ 1000/-per month. By the said order, his pay scale was also reduced to Rs. 1200-1800 in view of the order canceling the Time Bound Promotion of the petitioner (Annexure - 2). To similar effect is the office order no. 19 dated 28th June, 2005, which seeks to recover the amount paid in excess @ 1000/from 1.1.1996 onwards. Petitioner has also assailed the office order no. 12 dated 12th April, 2006 issued by the same respondent no. 6 whereunder also total amount of Rs. 74,535/has been directed to be recovered in installment. 3. The short facts relevant for deciding the controversy and not in dispute between the parties are as follows: (i) Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in Porahat Division of South Circle, Ranchi (now Chaibasa Circle) on 21st December, 1979. He got First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 21st December, 1989 vide order no. 141 dated 9th October, 1990 issued by the Conservator of Forest, Magadh Circle, Patna. Petitioner had not cleared the Third Part of Accounts Exam till that time, which he admittedly did on 17th/18th February, 2006. (ii) Respondents have also considered his case for grant of 1st and 2nd ACP/MACP after passing of the departmental exam in 2006 (Annexures - B & C) dated 3rd August, 2010 and 20th August, 2010 respectively. Cancellation of the order of Time Bound Promotion has been made on the grounds that petitioner has not passed the Audit Exam mandatory in view of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958. Rule 157 (3)(J)(b) provides that a candidate, who has not passed the final exam will not be promoted to the Senior Selection Grade. 4. Cancellation of the order of Time Bound Promotion has been made on the grounds that petitioner has not passed the Audit Exam mandatory in view of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958. Rule 157 (3)(J)(b) provides that a candidate, who has not passed the final exam will not be promoted to the Senior Selection Grade. 4. Petitioner has in support of the challenge relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Lala Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 228 stating that on consideration of Rule 157(J) of Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 also learned Single Judge held that there was no necessity to pass any such examination for promotion to Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1st April, 1981 and to the next Senior Selection Grade on the post of Assistant with effect from 1st April, 1986. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 580 in support of his submission. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of S. Naseemuddin Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2014) 4 JLJR 70 . It is submitted that in identical circumstances when Time Bound Promotion granted with effect from 1st March, 1987 to the said petitioner holding the post of Assistant was challenged, relying upon the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) and taking into account the fact that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the said petitioner, the show cause notice was quashed. Petitioner has also not indulged in any fraud or misrepresentation. The order of Time Bound Promotion was issued by the competent authority admittedly as per the stand of the respondent also which has been revoked after 15 years by the respondent no. 4 holding the same rank at the time when his claim for ACP benefits was being considered for the only reason that he had not passed the Third Part of Accounts Exam at the relevant point of time in 1990. Petitioner has passed the said exam thereafter in 2006 and has been granted financial upgradation also. 4 holding the same rank at the time when his claim for ACP benefits was being considered for the only reason that he had not passed the Third Part of Accounts Exam at the relevant point of time in 1990. Petitioner has passed the said exam thereafter in 2006 and has been granted financial upgradation also. Such cancellation and recovery would entail undue hardship upon the petitioner at the fagend of service when there is no deliberate misrepresentation or fraud alleged or established against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the impugned order of cancellation at Annexure - 2 was issued without any notice or show cause. 6. Counsel for the respondents have harped upon the mandatory requirement of passing the departmental exam for such Time Bound Promotion or financial upgradation as all such conditions which are required to be satisfied in regular promotion are also required to be satisfied in the matters of grant of such Time Bound Promotion and financial upgradation. Respondents have enclosed the resolution dated 30th December, 1981 (Annexure - A) where para 10 also stipulates the requirement of being found otherwise fit for promotion to the selection grade on the part of an employee. It is also inconsonance with the Rule 157 of Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958. Therefore, the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh at the time of consideration of the claim of ACP on noticing the lacuna in the order of Time Bound Promotion has cancelled the same. The consequential orders at Annexures-5 & 6 have been issued thereafter by the respondent no. 6 which also need no interference. 7. I have considered the submission of the parties and the relevant material facts on record. It is evident that Time Bound Promotion granted with effect from 21st December, 1989 by the competent authority i.e., Conservator of Forest of Magadh Circle, Patna has been cancelled by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle in the year 2005 after 15 years of its grant when there are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. It is also evident that petitioner has passed the next departmental accounts exam in 2006 whereafter he has been given the benefits of ACP/MACP in terms of ACP/MACP Scheme in vogue under the respondent Government. 8. It is also evident that petitioner has passed the next departmental accounts exam in 2006 whereafter he has been given the benefits of ACP/MACP in terms of ACP/MACP Scheme in vogue under the respondent Government. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the communication at Annexure - 1 dated 14th June, 1988 issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar to all Chief Conservator of Forest/Conservator of Forest and Divisional Forest Officers indicating that in view of the letter no. 1997 dated 3rd May, 1988 of the Department of Forest & Environment requirement of passing the departmental exam for the purposes of Time Bound Promotion is not mandatory as per the orders of Finance Department. It fails to reason as to how Time Bound Promotion granted in the year 1990, in such circumstances has been revoked after 15 years by an officer of the same rank, who is also the competent authority as per the stand of the respondents themselves at para 7 of the counter affidavit filed on 11th December, 2006. Petitioner has admittedly passed the departmental exam in 2006 thereafter. In such circumstances, the action of the respondents in revocation of Time Bound Promotion granted 15 years earlier appears to be in teeth of ratio rendered by Apex Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), wherein the cancellation of Time Bound Promotion granted 11 years earlier by the Respondent State of Bihar was found to be wholly unjustified. In similar circumstances, in the case of S. Naseemuddin Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors (Supra) when the said person had also been granted First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1st March, 1987 on the post of Assistant under the Department of Forest & Environment, the show cause notice issued in the year 2010 seeking to annul such time bound promotion was quashed by this Court following the ratio rendered by Apex Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey (Supra) . In the said case also the employee concerned had subsequently been granted exemption from passing the departmental exam in the year 2002 whereafter he was also promoted to the post of Section Officer in the year 2004. He had also been granted financial upgradation thereafter before his retirement. 9. In the said case also the employee concerned had subsequently been granted exemption from passing the departmental exam in the year 2002 whereafter he was also promoted to the post of Section Officer in the year 2004. He had also been granted financial upgradation thereafter before his retirement. 9. In the present case also it is found that such cancellation of time bound promotion after long length of time would entail undue hardship upon the petitioner when there was admittedly no fraud or misrepresentation on his part. It would rather be inequitable to uphold the impugned decision of the respondents canceling the time bound promotion granted to him earlier and effecting recovery of the amount paid thereunder for 15 long years. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey (Supra), the impugned orders cannot be held to be proper and equitable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders at Annexures - 2, 5 and 6 are quashed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Petition allowed.