Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1488 (JHR)

Bhuneshwar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2019-08-28

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 17.10.2017, issued by respondent No. 2, Director, Animal Husbandry, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the ACP/ MACP granted to the petitioner in accordance with law vide order dated 24.10.2016, by the competent-authority has been cancelled. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1975, as 4th grade employee and further, promoted to the post of Pashudhan Livestock Assistant along with other candidates vide order dated 22.01.1996. The petitioner continued to work to the full satisfaction of the respondents and as he was eligible for getting the benefits of 1st ACP and 2nd MACP in view of notification dated 14.08.2002 as well as 01.09.2009. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after 1996 he was not grant any regular promotion and as such, he was considered and granted 2nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008, which is apparent from Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the order of financial upgradation i.e. grant of the benefits of 2nd and 3rd MACP and as such, has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously urges that petitioner was entitled for the benefits of ACP and MACP and as such, the same was rightly considered and granted to him as per his entitlement. Learned counsel further argues that the same could not have been cancelled on the ground that petitioner is not entitled or had received excess amount by way of benefits of MACP. From perusal of the order granting benefits, it appears that petitioner was considered for grant of the benefits after completion of 12 years and 24 years of continuous service, in view of notification for granting the benefits of ACP. Learned counsel further argues that even the order of cancellation was passed without hearing the petitioner and without issuance of show-cause notice. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Ms. Chaitali Ch. Learned counsel further argues that even the order of cancellation was passed without hearing the petitioner and without issuance of show-cause notice. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submits that though the order of financial benefits granted to the petitioner has been cancelled but later on, it was found that in a similar matter where late Gajendra Paswan, promoted from Class-IV post to Class-III Post (Live Stock Assistant), was granted 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP and when his pay-fixation after grant of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP was sent to the Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, for verification, the Department of Finance has opined that promotion to the post of Livestock Assistant shall be considered as appointment and therefore, the ACP/ MACP will be calculated from the date of appointment of the new post (Live Stock Assistant) and in this condition, 12% promotional benefits would not be given. As per the aforesaid opinion of the Department of Finance, the Director, Animal Husbandry has granted ACP/ MACP to the concerned employee vide order dated 09.05.2018 and as such, on the basis of 2nd opinion of the Department, the admissible benefits of ACP/MACP to the petitioner after promotion (considering new appointment) to the post of Livestock Assistant would be given to the petitioner after completing the essential procedure in earliest possible time. 6. Be that as it may, having heard the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that already the respondent-authorities have corrected themselves and opined that the case of the petitioner shall be re-considered in view of the consideration given to one late Gajendra Paswan, the person promoted from Class-IV to Class-III post. As the petitioner has already superannuated on 18.02.2018, it is feasible that the respondents may consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits of ACP/ MACP as has been considered in case of Gajendra Paswan, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of copy of this order. Needless to say since the respondents themselves have considered the case of the petitioner for review, the benefits for which the petitioner is entitled to be extended to him within a further period of two weeks from the date of taking of such decision. Needless to say since the respondents themselves have considered the case of the petitioner for review, the benefits for which the petitioner is entitled to be extended to him within a further period of two weeks from the date of taking of such decision. 7. The Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Normi Topno Vrs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 466 , has clearly held that any order visiting with civil or evil consequences, cannot be acted upon without affording an opportunity of hearing and without following the cardinal principles of natural justice. In the instant case, admittedly without issuance of any notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 has been passed, which is not maintainable in the eyes of law and hence, it is quashed and set aside. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.