Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1919 (JHR)

Mahadeo Prasad Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2018-08-23

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner was successful before the learned First Court in having an order of recovery of certain sums received by him in course of employment invalidated, but has approached us seeking negation of certain proposition of law expressed in the judgment under appeal. 3. The writ petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Leprosy Subsidiary Centre, Chakulia, East Singhbhum and subsequently was promoted to the post of Non-Medical Assistant at the same centre. He has superannuated on 31.1.2007. In course of his employment, he had been given the benefit of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme which lifted his pay scale from Rs. 5,000-8,000/- to Rs. 5,500-9,000/-. After his superannuation, the case of the authorities is that they found that he was not entitled to such enhanced pay scale in the aforesaid scheme and hence, issued an order for recovery, upon cancelling the order of A.C.P. The complaint of the writ petitioner before the learned First Court was that on merit as well on procedural aspect, such cancellation and recovery direction could not be issued. On merit, the writ petitioner’s stand was that he was entitled to the A.C.P. and on procedural aspect, his case was that the aforesaid order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. According to him, such an order could not be passed after his retirement when the master-servant relationship stood severed. 4. The learned First Court found that an employee could not claim right over a benefit, which he got wrongly or by mistake on the ground of long lapse of time. So far as the writ petitioner’s case is concerned, however, the order, by which, the cancellation of A.C.P. took place, was found to be not sustainable as the same had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said order was quashed. 5. The State Leprosy Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi, however, was granted liberty to pass a fresh order in the matter concerning cancellation of order, granting A.C.P. to the writ petitioner after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 6. As a proposition of law, we do not find any fault with the observation made by the learned First Court, with which, the writ petitioner is aggrieved. No equity can run in respect of sum paid under mistake of law or fact. 6. As a proposition of law, we do not find any fault with the observation made by the learned First Court, with which, the writ petitioner is aggrieved. No equity can run in respect of sum paid under mistake of law or fact. As regards merit, we are not, however, making any observation as the State authority has been given liberty to proceed against the writ petitioner for cancelling the A.C.P. The writ petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to defend his case for protecting the benefit, he already received. 7. The writ petitioner shall be at liberty to take the plea that after retirement, such a proceeding could not be initiated and if such a plea is taken, the same shall be dealt with by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The authority shall take the decision uninfluenced by any of the observation made in the judgment under appeal. In the event the authorities decide to proceed with the matter, they shall complete the proceeding within four months upon giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. This four months’ period shall be computed from the date of communication of this order to the respondents by the appellant. 8. The instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.