Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 967 (JHR)

Thakur Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-20

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order In this writ application a common order has been raised and as such the grievances are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 11.12.2007 (Annexure-1) whereby the Superintendent of Police (Wireless) has ordered for recovery of amount paid allegedly in excess, to the petitioners under the Reducible Pay Protection (R.P.P.). 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount under the aforesaid scheme is paid to the petitioners under the order of the competent authority of the department only to afford pay protection to the petitioners since the persons junior to them are getting higher pay scales. It is further submitted that this practice of payment under the R.P.P. scheme has been continuing since the year 1996. However, without affording any opportunity to be heard and without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioners, the payment under the R.P.P. scheme has been abruptly stopped by the impugned order of the Superintendent of Police (Wireless). Learned counsel explains further that there is no allegation against the petitioners that there was any misrepresentation on their part which had influenced the payment of the amount under the R.P.P. scheme of the Government. The impugned order whereby the alleged excess payment is sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioners, according to the learned counsel, is totally illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical issue was earlier decided by a Bench of this court in W.P.(S) No. 6254 of 2007 and analogous cases and also in an earlier W.P.(S) No. 5464 of 2006 and the order whereby recovery of amount at higher scale paid to the employees, without any misrepresentation on their part, has been set aside. The petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the same benefit. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed in all these writ applications. Learned J.C. to A.G. seeks to explain that in the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the cases which were relied upon, were those in which the excess amount was sought to be recovered from the employees after their retirement. In the present case, except petitioner No. 14 in W.P. (S) No. 3563 of 2008, none of the petitioners have retired from service. In the present case, except petitioner No. 14 in W.P. (S) No. 3563 of 2008, none of the petitioners have retired from service. The stoppage of the payment of excess amount and the realization of the amount so paid has been made pursuant to the orders of the Finance Department of the State Government which has informed that the petitioners were not entitled to payment of any such extra amount under the R.P.P. scheme. 6. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and issues involved and the principles of law settled by the Supreme Court as also the Full Bench of this court in the cases of Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2007(4) JLJR, 459 and also in the case of Smt. Normi Topno vs. State of Jharkhand & Others in 2007(4) JLJR 466 , and following the ratio in the aforesaid judgments, it is held that the impugned orders for recovery of the purported excess amount, after more than 12 years is arbitrary and unsustainable in view of the fact that prior to issuance of such order, no show cause notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners to explain. The impugned orders is therefore hereby quashed. The concerned respondents shall refund the amounts to the petitioners if any such amount has already been deducted from the salary of the petitioners, within two months from the date of reciept / production of a copy of this order. 7. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.