JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 26.8.2011, whereby the time bound promotion given on 04.6.1992 was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not pass the departmental accounts examination. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order no. 58 dated 19.4.2012, whereby an order was passed for deduction of Rs. 1,10,751/- in which first instalment of Rs. 10,751/- was to be deducted in the month of April, 2012 and the rest in 10 monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner has not pressed prayer no. 1 (iii) and (iv). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now it is well settled that the benefit already granted cannot be withdrawn after a long time. He further submits that the petitioner has passed the departmental examination in the year 2006 and as such, he is duly entitled for first A.C.P. after passing of the departmental examination and thereafter for the second A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others vs. Dhananjay Kumar, 2020 SCC Online Jhar 196. He further submits that the recovery made by the respondents is against the settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2013 (12) SCC 580 . In the above referred decision, it has been held that an employee is not at fault if the time bound promotion is given to him much earlier and recovery can be permitted only in such cases where the employee concerned is guilty of producing forged certificate for the appointment or got the benefit due to misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his argument by submitting that since the petitioner has passed the departmental examination, he is duly entitled for his 1st A.C.P which has already been granted to him; as such, his second A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. should be regularized in terms of the government resolution. 4. Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his argument by submitting that since the petitioner has passed the departmental examination, he is duly entitled for his 1st A.C.P which has already been granted to him; as such, his second A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. should be regularized in terms of the government resolution. 4. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned S.C.VI appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that the instant application should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches inasmuch as the impugned order of recovery is of 2012 and the petitioner has challenged the same in 2015. He further submits that passing of departmental examination is the condition precedent for getting time bound promotion and no wrong can continue forever and in this case the moment the department detected it, the same has been rectified. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the petitioner has received the first A.C.P. benefits; as such, the 2nd A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefits will be granted to him as per Government resolution dated 21.5.2014 (Annexure K to the counter affidavit). In the case of Dhananjay Kumar (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court has clarified that if an employee is not getting any benefit due to his disqualification, he would be entitled to the same only when the disqualification will be removed. In the instant case, the petitioner became entitled for A.C.P. after passing of the departmental examination; as such, he will be entitled for the rest benefits as per the government resolution stated herein above. So far as recovery of the amount is concerned, now it is a well settled law that if there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part the employee, respondents cannot recover the amount, that too after lapse of a long time. In the case of Purshottam Lal Das and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 492 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that recovery can be permitted only in such cases, where the employee concerned is guilty of producing forged certificate for the appointment or got the benefit due to misrepresentation. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no fraud committed by the petitioner; rather it is an admitted case that the benefit was wrongly fixed due to the fault of the respondents. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no fraud committed by the petitioner; rather it is an admitted case that the benefit was wrongly fixed due to the fault of the respondents. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State with regards to delay and latches in challenging the order of recovery is concerned; this Court is not in agreement with such argument inasmuch as in the instant case, the State itself has rectified its own wrong after a gap of more than ten years. 6. As a result, the order of recovery as contained in Order No. 58 dated 19.4.2012 (Annexure 9) is quashed and set aside, so far as recovery is concerned. The respondent State is directed to refund the amount so deducted within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the amount so recovered is not refunded within the aforesaid stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled for compound interest at the rate of 7% from the date of deduction till the date of actual payment. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant application is disposed of. I.A. No. 2435 of 2016 8. In the light of final order passed in the writ application, this interlocutory application also stands disposed of.