Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 808 (JHR)

Amar Nath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-14

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1.This application has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to grant him first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1972, the year he completed ten years of service and to confirm the second time bound promotion granted to him since 1986 on completion of 25 years of service treating his service continuous since 1961. Further prayer has been made to quash the office order No. 322, dated 3rd September, 1996 and letter No. 2/E/112/Stha, dated 9th February, 1999 issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Ranchi whereby and where under the second time bound promotion earlier granted to him has been cancelled and it has been ordered to recover the excess amount of Rs. 50,804.55 paise from his retrial benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, who was appointed as Lower Division Assistant in the office of Chief Inspector of Factories, Ranchi, was transferred against a post of Computer (Sanganak) having higher scale of Rs. 240-396/-, as evident from Memo No. 8773, dated 11th October, 1976. Subsequently, vide order No. 84, dated 24th February, 1986 the petitioner was subsequently appointed against a permanent post of Computer (Sanganak) w.e.f. 1st March, 1977. 3. The State of Bihar vide Finance Departments Resolution No. 3/PRC-3/81F-10770, dated 30th December, 1981 decided to grant 1st and 2nd time bound promotion to its employees on completion of 10th year and 25th year of service, if no promotion has been granted. 4. The petitioner was allowed 1st time bound promotion to junior selection grade scale of Rs. 580-860/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 vide order No. 88, dated 28th February, 1986 issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar. He was given provisional promotion to next higher grade of Rs. 680-965/-, w.e.f. 1st April, 1985 vide order No. 89, dated 28th February, 1986. Subsequently, he was granted promotion to the higher grade of Rs. 850-1360/- w.e.f. 1st April 1987 vide Memo No. 322, dated 24th July, 1988 and retired on 31st January, 1996. . After retirement of petitioner, he was given benefit of junior selection grade in the revised scale of Rs. 1500-2750/- till regular promotion vide Memo No. 2798, dated 28th September, 199.6 subject to verification. Subsequently, an order was issued vide Memo No. 243, dated 28th September, 1996 whereby the 2nd time bound promotion granted to petitioner in the grade of Rs. After retirement of petitioner, he was given benefit of junior selection grade in the revised scale of Rs. 1500-2750/- till regular promotion vide Memo No. 2798, dated 28th September, 199.6 subject to verification. Subsequently, an order was issued vide Memo No. 243, dated 28th September, 1996 whereby the 2nd time bound promotion granted to petitioner in the grade of Rs. 850- 1360 w.e.f. 1st April, 1987 cancelled. Though the petitioner has challenged the order No. 243, dated 28th September, 1996 but the said order has been superseded by Memo No. 229, dated 28th August, 1998. The earlier order No. 243, dated 28th September, 1996 was cancelled. The respondents, thereafter, issued a letter No. 272, dated 9th February, 1999 and ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 50,804.55 paise from the retrial benefits of the petitioner. 5. According to respondents, the petitioner was not entitled for 1st and 2nd time bound promotion on the basis of date of initial appointment. Though he was initially appointed as Lower Division Assistant in the year 1961, but subsequently, he having appointed in the statistical cadre as Computer (Saganak) in the year 1968, where he was made permanent since 1977, cannot derive the advantage of the earlier period of Lower Division Assistant for the purpose of time bound promotion. 6. Admittedly, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner for his promotion to senior selection grade scale. The order was issued by the competent authority, the Chief Inspector of Factories, Ranchi, Bihar. After retirement, he was merely allowed revised scale of pay. It will be also evident that the respondents were even not clear whether the time bound promotion was rightly granted or not. So, initially, they cancelled the 2nd time bound promotion by order No. 244, dated 28th September, 1996 but the said order of cancellation was again cancelled vide order No. 229, dated 28th August, 1988 and time bound promotion as was allowed was restored. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, there being no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana reported in 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 18, the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the retrial benefits of the petitioner. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, there being no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana reported in 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 18, the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the retrial benefits of the petitioner. The order of recovery contained in Memo No. 272, dated 9th February, 1999 is set aside with direction to the respondents to finalise the retiral benefits of the petitioner and pay to admitted arrears, if payable, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations/directions. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs.