JUDGMENT : Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.: 1. Heard Mr. Awanish Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned GA III for the respondent State. I.A. No. 2014 of 2017 2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for direction upon the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1,96,375/- to the petitioner which has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application. 3. The petitioner is directed to make out necessary correction, in red ink, in the prayer portion of the writ petition in course of the day. 4. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 2017 of 2017 stands allowed. W.P.(S) No. 2461 of 2010 5. The petitioners has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.03.2010 whereby the ACP granted to the petitioner on 31.05.2005 was cancelled and excess money paid under A.C.P. scheme was directed to be recovered. 6. The petitioner was granted his 1st A.C.P. and second A.C.P. in the year 2005. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner that as to why not the provisional A.C.P. granted to him may not be cancelled as he has not passed the departmental accounts examination. Pursuant to that the petitioner submitted his show cause on 29.12.2009 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) stating therein that after attaining the age of 50 years there is no necessity of passing the department examination as per the letter No. 4674 dated 15.5.1992 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and further submitted that he had passed the departmental accounts examination at preliminary stage. Thereafter, the petitioner files representation in which he has pointed out that there is no requirement of passing the departmental examination after attaining the age of 50 years. The services of the petitioner have been confirmed in the year 2005. The petitioner was granted his 1st A.C.P. in the year 1999 and second in the year 2001. However, by order dated 30.03.2010, the respondent no. 3 has cancelled the First and Second A.C.P. granted to the petitioner in the year 2005 and directed the respondent no. 5 to recover the excess amount given to the petitioner on the ground of not passing the departmental examination. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner approached this Court. 7. However, by order dated 30.03.2010, the respondent no. 3 has cancelled the First and Second A.C.P. granted to the petitioner in the year 2005 and directed the respondent no. 5 to recover the excess amount given to the petitioner on the ground of not passing the departmental examination. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner approached this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide letter dated 15.5.1992 there is no requirement of passing of departmental examination for the employees who has crossed the age of 50 years. He further submits that there is no provision in Promotion Rule which suggest that the passing of the departmental examination is necessary. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Kanu Kachhap vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 2529 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2013 wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the Scheme of A.C.P. has to be seen in the light of the State of Jharkhand which does not envisage a mandatory requirement for passing the Departmental Accounts Examination for grant of promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this order has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st December, 2015 in L.P.A. No. 287 of 2017. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that it is condition precedent that if a person wants exemption from passing the departmental examination on attaining the age of 50 years he has to submit application for relief and exemption after completion of 50 years and he did not stated the number of attempts made to clear departmental examination which should at least be 5 attempts before the age of 50 years. To substantiate his argument Mr. Upadhyay also relied on the same letter dated 15.05.1992 to which the petitioner has relied. Mr Upadhayya further relied on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in the Case of Birendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. To substantiate his argument Mr. Upadhyay also relied on the same letter dated 15.05.1992 to which the petitioner has relied. Mr Upadhayya further relied on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in the Case of Birendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 49 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2019 wherein the Division Bench held that the appellant did not pass the departmental examination which is mandatory for entitlement for A.C.P. and also the case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Saryug Prasad, petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5579 of 2010. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court finds that the petitioner has been provided 1st and 2nd A.C.P. suo-motu by the respondents authorities. The petitioner has not suppressed or misrepresented anything before the authorities as such the petitioner cannot be saddled for such action of the respondents. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by the respondent State it is made clear that there is no departmental rule to suggest that the passing of departmental examination is necessary and judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Kanu Kachhap Case and In L.P.A. NO. 287 of 2014 (Supra) are further communicated in favour of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter have not been brought before the Division Bench of This Court in L.P.A. No. 49 of 2017 and as such it was not considered in L.P.A. No. 49 of 2017. 10. As a cumulative effect of above submission and taking into account that the departmental rule do not suggest that the passing of the departmental examination is necessary and the judgment delivered in the case of Kanu Kachhap and in LPA 287 of 2014 Supra the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and accordingly the impugned order is quashed. 11. The respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 1,96,375/- to the petitioner within eight weeks’ from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. 13. Accordingly, I.A., if any stands disposed of.