Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 217 (JHR)

Atul Chandra Roy v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-02-17

TAPEN SEN

body2003
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this Writ Application the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2001 issued under Memo No. 564 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka by which promotions granted to the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1980 in the I.A. trained scale and with effect from 1.4.1982 in the B.A. trained scale was cancelled and it was ordered that amounts paid to the petitioner should be recovered. According to the petitioner, he has worked for so many years and therefore, for the period he worked, the respondents have no right to make any order for recovery. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that no opportunity of hearing nor any notice was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order. On the earlier date, i.e. 14.2.2003, when this case was called out, there was no representation on behalf of the State respondents and therefore this Court had expressed displeasure and had ordered that if on the next date, no one was present on their behalf then this court would be compelled to restrain the respondents from drawing their salary. This order was passed in the backdrop of a grievance being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the respondents had not even complied with the interim order passed on 5.9.2001. 3. It appears that the aforementioned order was misunderstood by the office of the State respondents and they, perhaps, thought that there was an order for personal appearance of the Secretary, Primary Secondary and Higher Education and that is why, today the said Officer is present in Court alongwith a show cause. 4. Let it be recorded that there was no order for personal appearance of the Officer referred to above but however, since he has appeared and has been very prompt in responding to his counsels communication, though given incorrectly, his promptitude is well appreciated by this Court. His appearance is however accordingly dispensed with. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced for perusal of this Court a certified copy of the order dated 17.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1486 of 2001. His appearance is however accordingly dispensed with. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced for perusal of this Court a certified copy of the order dated 17.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1486 of 2001. Upon perusal thereof, it appears that the said Writ Application was identical and an Honble Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Application by quashing the order dated 27.2.2001 and remanded the matter for proper dealing in accordance with law. 6. In reply to the aforementioned submission, Mr. B.S. Lall, the learned Additional Advocate General drew attention of this Court to two other orders passed, again, in identical cases where the order dated 27.2.2001 were also impugned. One of them te. the order dated 7.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 3462 of 1999 (R) is to be found at running page 70 and it shows that another Honble Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the Writ Application and accordingly, he proceeded to dismiss the same. The other order is dated 20.11.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1239 of 2001 where again, the same office order was challenged and once again the Honble Single Judge dismissed the Writ Application. 7. This Court therefore, is faced with one order allowing the Writ Application (i.e. CWJC No. 1486 of 2001 passed on 17.4.2001) and two orders dismissing the Writ Applications (vide CWJC No. 1239/ 2001 dated 20.11.2001 and CWJC No. 3462/ 1999 (R) dated 7.4.2001). The aforementioned two orders dismissing the Writ Applications are to be found at running pages 68 to 71 of the Application. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no option but to refer the matter to the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to bring on record, through an Affidavit the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 17.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1486 of 2001 which he has produced in Court today for consideration by the Division Bench. 9. Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file requisite number of paper books within one week from today failing which this Writ Application will stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. The office shall immediately therefore place this matter before the Division Bench, after obtaining leave of Honble the Chief Justice.