1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, both on the point of condonation of delay of 424 days in preferring the instant Memo of Appeal made through I.A. No. 6290/2019 and also on the merits of the challenge to the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 passed in WPS No. 2027/2015 by the learned Writ Court. 2. In the delay condonation application, appellant/State has taken the plea that after passing of the impugned order, proper steps were taken by the Chief Engineer on 21.12.2017 for filing of the appeal and thereafter, opinion was sought from the office of learned Advocate General vide letter no. 7040(s) dated 12.12.2017. After receipt of the opinion, grounds for filing appeal were prepared and file was sent to the Department for seeking approval. Thereafter, appeal was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/Respondent has strongly opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. It is submitted that delay is not miniscule, rather more than a year. Therefore, explanation on such flimsy grounds should not be accepted. 4. On merits, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mehta has primarily tried to make out a ground that grant of exemption from passing the departmental exam after retirement of the petitioner, a condition for grant of A.C.P benefits, was not proper. Having realized that, the Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Hazaribag has cancelled the First time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1985, regular promotion to the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 30.06.2000 and second ACP benefit granted with effect from 01.09.1999 by order dated 18.12.2003. Learned counsel for the State submits that consequent to the cancellation of these promotions, excess payment was recoverable. Learned Single Judge has erroneously set aside the order without taking note of the relevant facts that the financial up-gradation in the nature of time bound promotion, A.C.P. benefits and regular promotion were availed of by the petitioner without passing the departmental exam during his service career and without any exemption granted in his favour on completion of 50 years of age during his service period. As such the impugned order is vulnerable to be interfered in appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/Respondent has inter alia made the following submissions: Petitioner was appointed as Correspondence Clerk in Public Works Department, Hazaribag on 01.09.1975 and was granted first time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs. As such the impugned order is vulnerable to be interfered in appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/Respondent has inter alia made the following submissions: Petitioner was appointed as Correspondence Clerk in Public Works Department, Hazaribag on 01.09.1975 and was granted first time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 680-695 with effect from 01.09.1985 and had cleared 2nd paper of Departmental Accounts Exam on 27.09.1999 during his service career. He had completed 24 years of service by 01.09.1999 without any regular promotion. Apart from first time bound promotion, department had granted him regular promotion to the post of Head Clerk vide order no. 1116 dated 30.06.2000. There was no pre-condition incorporated in the grant of regular promotion that he should have passed the departmental exam. It was acted upon and petitioner finally superannuated on 31.01.2007 from the said post. Long before his superannuation, he had applied for exemption from passing departmental exam before the competent authority, but exemption was finally granted by order dated 09.03.2007 by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Ranchi vide Memo No. 1134 (S) in the light of the Circular No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983 issued by the Personnel Department. The order (Annexure-5) indicates that the decision had the approval of the Departmental Minister. The exemption order has neither been recalled nor cancelled. The decision to cancel the time bound promotion, regular promotion and the A.C.P. benefits has been taken by a much inferior authority i.e., the Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Hazaribag in the year 2015 when the petitioner has been granted monetary benefits of these promotions and financial up-gradations all along. Therefore, cancellation of the time bound promotion was not proper in the eyes of law after 30 years in 2015, regular promotion after 15 years of its grant and A.C.P. benefit after 12 years of its grant and that too after the order of exemption from passing the departmental examination in his favour. Consequential recovery is also impermissible in law as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment in the case of State of Punjab & Other Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & other [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ]. Petitioner was a Class-III employee and the alleged excess payments were also made in excess of five years before the order of recovery was issued. Petitioner was a Class-III employee and the alleged excess payments were also made in excess of five years before the order of recovery was issued. The order of recovery has been issued much after the retirement of the petitioner in 2007. Therefore, there is no merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/State and the writ petitioner/Respondent, both on the point of limitation and on the merits of the challenge. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the reasons stated in the delay condonation application, I.A. No. 6290/2019 is allowed. Certain relevant material facts needs to be noted hereunder in order to deal with the merits of the challenge to the impugned order made by the appellant State: Petitioner was appointed as Correspondence Clerk in Public Works Department, Hazaribag on 01.09.1975; after 10 years of his service, he got first time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs.680-695 with effect from 01.09.1985. Apparently, he cleared 2nd paper of Departmental Accounts Exam on 27.09.1999. Thereafter, he was granted regular promotion to the post of Head Clerk vide office order no. 1116 dated 30.06.2000 and he joined on the said post on 01.08.2000. He finally superannuated on 31.01.2007 while working on the said post. He got the benefit of 2nd A.C.P. with effect from 01.09.1999 vide order dated 18.12.2003. Grant of A.C.P. was, of course, hedged with the condition that employee should have fulfilled the eligibility condition which are applicable for grant of regular promotion that includes passing of departmental examination. 7. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5795 of 2011 seeking payment of arrears of salary as per the 6th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2006 and re-fixation of post-retirement benefits. Respondent State had brought on record the order dated 27.07.2012 passed in the case of the petitioner whereby the benefits of first time bound promotion, A.C.P benefits and regular promotion had been cancelled and thereafter pay was fixed. Learned Writ Court quashed the order dated 27.07.2012 inter-alia on the ground that cancellation of regular promotion amounted to reversion, which was in the nature of major punishment under the disciplinary rules and had not been preceded by the Departmental proceeding or at least a show cause notice. Learned Writ Court quashed the order dated 27.07.2012 inter-alia on the ground that cancellation of regular promotion amounted to reversion, which was in the nature of major punishment under the disciplinary rules and had not been preceded by the Departmental proceeding or at least a show cause notice. The order had been passed in the mechanical manner without assigning any reason or show cause notice. Therefore, it was not sustainable. At para 17 and 18 of the order, the Writ Court had also taken into account that the petitioner was granted exemption from passing the departmental exam vide memo no. 1134(S) dated 09.03.2007 issued by the Engineer-In-Chief of the Department after he had retired on 31.01.2007, though such application was made prior to his retirement. Upon remand, the order impugned in the present writ petition was passed by the Superintending Engineer on the ground that all these financial up-gradation and regular promotion were not proper in the eyes of law since the writ petitioner had failed to pass the departmental accounts exam. In the aforesaid background facts, we now proceed to deal with the contention of the parties in the following manner: Cancellation of time bound promotion granted with effect from 01.09.1985 by an order passed in 2012 at the first instance and thereafter by the present impugned order dated 27.03.2015 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Hazaribag, would be impermissible in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey versus State of Bihar & others [(2013) 12 SCC 589, moreover when he was granted exemption from passing the Departmental Exam after approval of the Departmental Minister. Para 9 and 10 thereof is quoted hereunder: “9. In our view, the facts of the present case are clearly covered under the two judgments referred to and relied upon by Mr Rai. The appellant was not at all in any way at fault. It was a time-bound promotion which was given to him and some eleven years thereafter, the authorities of the Bihar Government woke up and according to them the time-bound promotion was wrongly given and that the relevant rules are being relied upon and that too after the appellant had passed the required examination. 10. In our view, this approach was totally unjustified. The learned Single Judge was right in the order that he has passed. 10. In our view, this approach was totally unjustified. The learned Single Judge was right in the order that he has passed. There was no reason for the Division Bench to interfere. The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment1 of the Division Bench is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant will stand decreed as granted by the learned Single Judge. The parties will bear their own costs.” 8. Such cancellation has been made after almost 27 years, in the first instance in 2012 and finally by the impugned order passed in the year 2015 after 30 years. Petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 30.06.2000 by the competent authority and it was acted upon as well, till petitioner superannuated from the said post on 31.01.2007. Respondents granted benefits of A.C.P. after completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 01.09.1999 as he had not availed of any regular promotion within that time except one time bound promotion. This was in the light of the A.C.P. Circular dated 14.08.2002. It is evident from the pleadings on record noted above, and also on perusal of the impugned order that exemption from passing the departmental exam was granted by the Engineer-In-Chief of the Department vide order dated 09.03.2007, though after superannuation of the petitioner, but it had the approval of the Departmental Minister. The order granting exemption has neither been recalled nor cancelled by the State. The circular under which such exemption was granted is at page 111 of the memo of the appeal bearing no. 1169 dated 09.11.1983, clause 6 thereof indicates that such exemption is to be granted after permission of the Departmental Minister. Clause 7 indicates that prior approval from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha is not required. This circular however also stipulates that the order granting exemption would operate from the date it is issued. It is not in dispute that application for exemption was made prior to the date of retirement, but it was granted after his superannuation by the approval of the competent authority. In the meanwhile, by the time these orders were cancelled finally in 2015, petitioner had availed the monetary benefits of the promotion and financial up-gradation over considerable period much beyond 5 years, as per the stipulation contained in judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Mashi (supra). In the meanwhile, by the time these orders were cancelled finally in 2015, petitioner had availed the monetary benefits of the promotion and financial up-gradation over considerable period much beyond 5 years, as per the stipulation contained in judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Mashi (supra). Para 18 thereof is quoted hereunder: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 9. Petitioner was a Class-III employee and order of recovery were passed after 8 years of his retirement in 2015. In the light of the discussion made herein above, it is clear that cancellation of first time bound promotion was not proper in the eyes of law in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey (supra). The cancellation of A.C.P benefits much after the grant of exemption by the competent authority under the Department by an Officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer was also not permissible. The cancellation of A.C.P benefits much after the grant of exemption by the competent authority under the Department by an Officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer was also not permissible. In any case, no recovery could have been made from the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) as the petitioner was a Class-III employee; order of recovery was made much after the retirement of the writ petitioner on 31.01.2007; alleged excess payment were made in excess of 5 years before the order of recovery was issued and moreover, the recovery in such circumstances would lead to iniquitous and harsh results. The appellant State has also not been able to make out a case of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the employee in availing promotions. 10. On a broad consideration of these facts and circumstances, the principles laid down by the Apex Court, referred to herein above, and the elaborate discussion made, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.