JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the office order No.67 dated 19.08.2009; whereby the first time bound promotion granted to the petitioner and the benefits thereon accorded to him has been cancelled which was granted under the 4th Pay Revision Scheme of the State of Bihar way back in the year 1989. 3. Mr. J. P. Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2009 and after his retirement this order has been passed behind his back and order of recovery has also been passed. He further submits that the petitioner has not mis-represented anything for getting any extra benefit for time bound promotion and there is no fault of the petitioner in getting extra pay fixation. Now the law is well settled; any order having civil consequences has to be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee and following principle of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the office order No.67 dated 19.08.2009 is wholly justified and has been issued pursuant to the guidelines given by Fitment Committee for Vth Pay Revision vide circular No.3M2-5- ve-pu-01/99 660 dated 08.12.1999 (2) of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, wherein paragraph 11 stipulates that the State Government have decided to abolish the existing facilities of time bound promotions and selection grades shall ceases to be applicable w.e.f 01.01.1996. Learned counsel further submits that each and every pay commission grants benefits and facilities to employees and makes changes of prevailing pay/promotion structure. The petitioner is availing all benefits of 5th pay revision e.g. enhanced pay scales, Assured Career progression etc. He further submits that so far as the averment with regard to letter no. II 19.09.-est-791/dated 13.07.2009 of respondent No.2 is concerned; the same is not illegal and unconstitutional. In this letter respondent no.2 made bona-fide objections that without passing departmental/Accounts examination petitioner is not eligible for 1st time bound promotion. This objection is legal as per guidelines given in the letter No.3/P.A.R-04-2/89/4178 dated 12.08.1992 of the Finance Department. In this letter it has been made clear that 1st time bound promotion shall be given to those clerks only, who has passed the departmental/accounts examination, unless and until their 1st time bound promotion is due before 01.09.1983. This objection is legal as per guidelines given in the letter No.3/P.A.R-04-2/89/4178 dated 12.08.1992 of the Finance Department. In this letter it has been made clear that 1st time bound promotion shall be given to those clerks only, who has passed the departmental/accounts examination, unless and until their 1st time bound promotion is due before 01.09.1983. This letter clearly says that any promotion without passing the exam is liable be cancelled. In the instant case, petitioner has passed his examination on 09.11.1998 that’s why his promotion given w.e.f. 18.12.1989 is liable to be cancelled. 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 retired on 31.07.2009 and impugned order (Annexure-1) has been issued after his retirement. Admittedly; before issuing the order impugned, no notice was given to this petitioner and the order of recovery has been passed. 6. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , has laid down the law in paragraph 57 and 59 as under:- “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” 7. In the instant case, admittedly; no misrepresentation or fraud has been committed by the petitioner in getting the first time bound promotion and subsequent benefits. The stand of the respondent that without passing departmental examination the petitioner was not entitled for first time bound promotion is not acceptable, inasmuch as, any order which is having civil consequence has to be passed by giving specific notice to the concerned employee. It is true that the mistake which has been committed by the office can be corrected as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Narendra Singh reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750 but at the same time in catena of decision it has been held that the excess amount if not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud and if the same has been paid by applying a wrong principle of calculation which has been subsequently found erroneous; then refund of such amount is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Admittedly; in the instant case, the order impugned has been passed without hearing the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned order as contained in office order No.67 dated 19.08.2009, is hereby, quashed and the respondents are directed to pass a fresh order after giving notice to this petitioner and pass a fresh order. It is made clear that the Respondents have every right to correct their mistake; but in no case any recovery should be made. 9. With the aforesaid terms the instant writ application stands allowed.