JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order no. 62 dated 29.11.2011, wherein the benefit of ACP granted to the petitioner had been cancelled on the ground of non passing of departmental examination and consequently recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner. 3. As per pleading, petitioner had been appointed on 14.05.1987 on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. The petitioner could not clear the departmental examination and as such he had applied for exemption. Exemption had been granted vide memo no.524 dated 26.07.2004. On the basis of the said exemption, petitioner had been granted the benefit of ACP alongwith one another person, namely, Rewati Raman Singh vide order no.43 contained in memo no.997 dated 16.12.2004. The benefit of first ACP had been granted w.e.f. 09.08.1999. The said benefit of ACP had been modified by subsequent order dated 30.01.2006 by making it effective w.e.f. 26.07.2004 i.e. from the dated of exemption from passing of the departmental examination. The benefit given to the petitioner alongwith Rewati Raman Singh had been cancelled vide memo dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure-6). 4. It had been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Rewati Raman Singh had approached this Court by filing W.P.S. No.4619 of 2013 and this Court vide order dated 26.08.2014 had granted relief to him. 5. The order of this Court dated 26.08.2014 is quoted hereinunder :- Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The grant of first A.C.P. and second A.C.P. to the petitioner through order no. 43 read with memo no. 997 dated 16.12.2004(Annexure-2) issued by the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Deoghar Circle and the subsequent confirmation by the order of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, as conveyed through letter no. 163 dated 18.3.2006 issued by the Regional Development Officer, Santhal Pargana Dumka (Annexure-3) have been annulled by the impugned order No.62 bearing memo no. 1493 dated 29.11.2011(Annexure-7) to the writ petition on the ground that the order of exemption from passing the departmental examination of the persons including the petitioner has been cancelled by the same office of Superintending Engineer. Pursuant to the impugned order an amount paid on grant of first and second A.C.P. were also sought to be recovered. 1493 dated 29.11.2011(Annexure-7) to the writ petition on the ground that the order of exemption from passing the departmental examination of the persons including the petitioner has been cancelled by the same office of Superintending Engineer. Pursuant to the impugned order an amount paid on grant of first and second A.C.P. were also sought to be recovered. Petitioner was granted exemption from passing the departmental examination on completion of 50 years of age on 30.6.2003 as per his date of birth 30.6.1953 by the Superintending Engineer, Respondent No.3 through letter dated 16.7.2004 bearing memo no. 500(Annexure-1) giving reference to the departmental circular no. 11691 dated 9.11.1983. The only ground defending the order impugned on the part of the respondents as reflected through their stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the order of exemption from passing the departmental examination was not granted by the competent authority rather the Superintending Engineer had issued the said order, though not competent to do so. Apart from the above, neither the impugned order nor the stand taken by the respondents referred in the counter affidavit indicates that the petitioner did not fulfill the other requisite criteria as laid down under the circular of 9.11.1983 to seek exemption from passing the departmental examination. The said circular refers to certain conditions such as the employee should have crossed 50 years of age and that inspite of successive attempt made by the employee he could not clear the departmental examination or because of official reasons the departmental examination itself could not be held. The said circular however, stipulated that order of exemption can be granted by the Minister of the department concerned. As noticed herein above, the respondents have not made out a case that stipulated conditions laid down in the said circular were not fulfilled by the petitioner, except for the ground that the order was issued by the Superintending Engineer, who is not the competent authority. The order has also been issued without any notice or show cause to the petitioner. At the same time the grant of A.C.P.s by the Superintending Engineer vide Annexure-2 has been confirmed on conscious application of mind by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, who is a competent authority, as per Annexure-3. The order has also been issued without any notice or show cause to the petitioner. At the same time the grant of A.C.P.s by the Superintending Engineer vide Annexure-2 has been confirmed on conscious application of mind by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, who is a competent authority, as per Annexure-3. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure-7) suffers from violation of Principle of Natural Justice and the irregularity alleged is also not attributable to the employee i.e. petitioner. There was no allegation of either fraud or misrepresentation against him while he was granted such benefits of financial up-gradation. In these circumstances, when the A.C.P.s have been granted in the year 2004 on the basis of exemption from passing the departmental examination also in 2004 and same being confirmed by the competent authority in 2006, the stand of the respondents to annul the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law as also being wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The impugned order dated 29.11.2011(Annexure-7), so far as it relates to the petitioner, is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 6. On the ground of parity, same treatment is being claimed by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner but has not disputed the similarity between the petitioner and Rewati Raman Singh. 8. It is an admitted position that both the persons had been given exemption by the same office order and benefit of ACP also and the reason for cancelling the ACP is also same. 9. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated 29.11.20111 is, hereby, quashed. 10. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 11. With above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.