Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 360 (PAT)

Purushottam Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2003-03-31

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The order, as contained in Annexure-18, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner third time has been reverted to his substantive post of basic health worker. 3. It appears that the petitioner was substantially appointed on the post of basic health worker under the respondents in the year 1980 and thereafter by virtue of the order dated 18-12-1985, the petitioner was promoted to the post of clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 580-860. After issuance of the order of promotion, the petitioner was reverted back to his substantive post with effect from 15-6-1986. The petitioner challenged the order of reversion before the State Administrative Tribunal and the State Administrative Tribunal vide its order, as contained in Annexure-4, directed the petitioner to file a representation before the authority and the authorities were directed to consider the same. Pursuant to which the representation of the petitioner was considered and the authorities reinstated the petitioner on the post of clerk by virtue of the order, as contained in Annexure-7 dated 3-6-1998 and immediately after issuance of order of reinstatement of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-7, an order of reversion was again issued by the respondents, as contained, in Annexure-8 dated 17-6-1998 within a period of fortnight from the date of reinstatement of the petitioner and also to realise the excess amount paid to the petitioner on the post of clerk. The petitioner thereafter challenged the notification, as contained in Annexure-8, in CWJC No. 5643 of 1998, which was finally disposed of after hearing the parties vide order, as contained in Annexure-10, and the order of reversion was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated on the post of clerk. However, a liberty was given to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law after due notice to the petitioner. After passing of the order, as contained in Annexure-10 dated 13-9-2000, the respondent authorities have issued the notification, as contained in Annexure-18 dated 30th December, 2002, again reverting back the petitioner to the post of basic health worker from the post of clerk. 4. Mr. After passing of the order, as contained in Annexure-10 dated 13-9-2000, the respondent authorities have issued the notification, as contained in Annexure-18 dated 30th December, 2002, again reverting back the petitioner to the post of basic health worker from the post of clerk. 4. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the question of promotion of the petitioner to the post of clerk was tested firstly by the State Administrative Tribunal and secondly by this Court while passing the order, as contained in Annexure-10, and no infirmity, whatsoever, was found in the order of promotion of the petitioner, and, therefore, the authorities firstly reinstated the petitioner by virtue of order, as contained in Annexure-7, and, thereafter he was reinstated by virtue of the order, as contained in Annexure-10, and, without any rhyme or reason, the order impugned has been issued again reverting back the petitioner to the post of basic health worker. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner continued on the promotional post for more than 15 years and at the face of the orders, as contained in Annexures-7 and 10, no order of reversion could have been passed by the respondent authorities, and, thus, the order impugned, as contained in Annexure-18, and the follow up action, as contained in Annexure-2/1, are not sustainable in law. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but no cogent reason has been given as to what compelled the authority to issue the notification, as contained in Annexure-18, at the face of the orders, as contained in Annexures 7 and 10. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that liberty was given to the authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and the authorities have considered the matter and passed the order impugned. 7. I have perused the order impugned, as contained in Annexure-18. It is not discernible from it as to what compelled the authority in passing the order of reversion again and moreso, no notice was given to the petitioner before issuance of the order impugned, as contained in Annexure-18. In a case, where there would be an exigency to consider the matter afresh, the authority may do so, but for doing so, he must assign sufficient reasons in the order. 8. In a case, where there would be an exigency to consider the matter afresh, the authority may do so, but for doing so, he must assign sufficient reasons in the order. 8. In the case at hand, from the order impugned, as contained in Annexure-18 the authorities have not shown any circumstance for passing the order of reversion nor they have explained the circumstances for overcoming the orders, as referred to above. In appears to be a gross case, where the respondents despite their own order, as contained in Annexure-7 and the direction of this Court, as contained in Annexure-10, have repeatedly reverted the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has remained on the promotional post for more than 15 years and his promotion at the face of the orders, as contained in Annexures-7 and 10, cannot be said to be contrary to law. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the order, as contained in Annexure-18, and the follow up action, as contained in Annexure-2/1, are not sustainable in law. 10. In the result, this application is allowed and the orders, as contained in Annexures-18 and 2/1 are set aside the petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post of Clerk forthwith. 11. No order as to costs.