ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Memo No. 708 dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-13), issued by Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi. Further prayer has been made to grant the benefits of ACP/MACP with effect from 01.08.1998 till the retirement i.e. 31.07.2008 and thereafter, on the basis of refixation, the pensionary benefits be fixed from the date the petitioner has retired from service. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk under the respondents and his date-of-birth is 01.08.1948, therefore, he has completed the age of 50 years on 01.08.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year, 1994, he appeared in the departmental examination but he failed to clear the second part of the said examination. In the year, 1999-2000, the Departmental Examination was conducted but the petitioner could not appear in the said examination due to urgent official work and as such, on that account, the petitioner was debarred for getting the benefits of ACP as he has not cleared the departmental examination. The petitioner retired from his services w.e.f. 31.07.2008, while working on the post of Accounts Clerk under the respondent No. 6. It is specific case of the petitioner that in view of Resolution/ Notification no. 4674 dated 15.05.1992, the employees, who have completed the age of 50 years be exonerated from appearing / passing the departmental examination. In view of the said notification and on completion of 50 years of age in August, 1998, the petitioner represented before the respondents, but without considering the said Circular/Notification, the same was rejected vide letter No. 742 dated 06.09.1999. Thereafter, as the petitioner fulfilled all the criteria in terms of Annexure 1, the petitioner again filed a representation before the respondent No. 5 and on receipt of same, the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 16.05.2001 recommended the matter of the petitioner to respondent No. 4 for grant of the benefits of ACP Scheme without passing the Departmental Examination in terms of the guidelines dated 15.05.1992 as the petitioner had already completed the age of 50 years. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 10.10.2001 directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 2 if so desired. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 10.10.2001 directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 2 if so desired. Accordingly, in view of the direction, the petitioner represented through proper channel, which was strongly recommended by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 along with entire records and with all relevant documents before the respondent No. 2 on 07.08.2003 and 01.12.2003 respectively. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 passed an order directing the concerned respondent to pass positive order with regard to the petitioner for granting the benefits of ACP. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 483 dated 20.08.2004 rejected the claim of the petitioner for granting the benefit of exoneration from appearing in the Departmental Examination after completion of 50 years of age on the ground that in the year, 1999, the matter was already rejected by respondent No. 4. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 6079 of 2004, which was dismissed on 02.01.2013. Against the order of dismissal dated 02.01.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner preferred LPA before the Division Bench, which was allowed vide order dated 25.02.2014 and the order of learned Single Judge was set aside and matter was remitted back to the respondent No. 4 for considering the case of the appellant in the light of Notification No. 4674 dated 15.05.1992. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner represented before respondent No. 4 on 12.03.2014. As the representation of the petitioner was not disposed off, the petitioner filed Cont. (Civil) Case No. 892 of 2014. It is further the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of aforesaid Cont. case, the respondent No. 6 filed a show cause and annexed the copy of the order passed by the respondent No. 4 issued vide Memo No. 1383 dated 24.07.2014, which was passed in favour of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was exempted from appearing in the Departmental Examination in the light of letter No. 474 dated 15.05.1992 and also such order was passed in light of the direction issued in L.P.A. No. 46/2013. But the respondent No. 5 vide his Memo No. 708 dated 14.11.2014 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of the benefits of ACP/MACP and as such, the Cont. But the respondent No. 5 vide his Memo No. 708 dated 14.11.2014 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of the benefits of ACP/MACP and as such, the Cont. Case was dismissed with a direction to challenge the order of rejection and hence, this writ petition has been preferred, challenging the order of rejection for granting the benefit of ACP/ MACP. 4. Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-13 is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. The matter was duly considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 46/2013 and after considering the entire aspect of the matter, a direction was given to the respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefits of ACP in view of the earlier order of exemption from passing the Departmental Examination. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when already the petitioner was exempted from appearing in the departmental examination on the ground that he had completed 50 years of age and there was no occasion to reject his claim passing on the same ground, which was already rejected by the respondents and the case of the petitioner was allowed and exemption was granted. Learned counsel further argues that the ground taken by the respondents in Annexure-13 dated 14.11.2014 is not tenable in the eyes of law as the petitioner retired way back in the year, 2008, he is not entitled for grant of ACP in view of exemption order passed in the year 2014. The petitioner had already applied for exemption in the year 1999 itself and in the year 2001, he was exempted from the departmental examination. Then, there was no occasion for the respondents to grant the exemption in the year 2014. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that exemption from appearing in departmental examination will be applicable to those employees, who have completed the age of 50 years and the order of exemption will be effective from the of issuance of said exemption order and the said order was issued on 24.07.2014. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of ACP as he retired in the year 2008 itself and the exemption was granted in the year, 2014. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The petitioner is fully entitled for the benefits of ACP though he has retired in the year, 2008 itself. It cannot be said by the respondents as there was an exemption order in the year, 2014, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of ACP. This argument of learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable to this Court, the petitioner has applied for exemption in the year, 1999 itself, which was considered in 2001. Now, in the year, 2014 an order of exemption has been issued, which clearly shows callous approach of the respondents. It is an admitted fact that much prior to the date of retirement, the petitioner had applied for exemption. It is the respondents, who are at fault and not the petitioner. Though an exemption was given to the petitioner in the year, 2014 but in view of the fact that before the Division Bench, it was accepted by the respondents that the petitioner had applied way back in the year, 1999 and there was a clear cut finding of the Hon'ble Division Bench, which was never challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, it has attained finality. Moreover, the Cont. Application was dismissed on the technical ground that the petitioner had not challenged the impugned order dated 14.11.2014. In view of the order of Hon'ble Division Bench and in view of the Resolution of the State Government, the petitioner is fully entitled for the benefits of ACP. 7. The order of exemption dated 24.07.2014 will not come in the way of grant of benefits of ACP to the petitioner. Even going through the impugned order, it transpires that earlier order of exemption was passed by the Superintending Engineer. Now again the order has been reviewed by the same authority i.e. Successor in the Office, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The authority, who has reviewed the order of his predecessor might not be aware of the Rules. Now again the order has been reviewed by the same authority i.e. Successor in the Office, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The authority, who has reviewed the order of his predecessor might not be aware of the Rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.T. Rangachari vs. Secretary of State for India in Council reported in 1937 0 AIR (PC) 27 has observed that the successor in office cannot review the decision of his predecessor. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, I hereby quashed the impugned order dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-13) and direct the respondent No. 5 to consider the case of the petitioner regarding grant of financial up-gradation under 1st Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) by exempting the petitioner from necessity of passing of departmental examination with effective from 01.08.1998 with all consequential benefits viz. payment of arrears, re-fixation of pension etc. The entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petitioners stands allowed.