Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1173 (PAT)

Vinod Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar

2023-10-13

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

body2023
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 14.7.2014, issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, as also the order dated 10.4.2013, passed by the Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e. the Respondent No. 7, whereby and whereunder it has been held that since the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination, he would not be entitled to 1st time bound promotion and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 99,150/- has been sought to be recovered. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has passed the departmental exam in the year, 2007 and 2008. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that since the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination in time, he was wrongly granted the benefits of the 1st time bound promotion, hence, the same has been withdrawn. 4. This Court finds that the law regarding the issue under consideration is no longer rest integra, inasmuch as a learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ram Subhag Singh (LPA No. 4 of 2021), by a judgment dated 11.5.2022, has held that non passing of departmental examination shall not be an impediment to grant of the benefits of time bound promotions/ACP/MACP. In fact, this aspect of the matter has also been decided by a judgment, rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Anjani Kumar, reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 643 , which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, by an order dated 10.3.2014, passed in SLP (C) No. 19182 of 2013. In a recent judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2023 (2) PLJR (SC) 423, it has been held that extending the benefit of ACP, which is purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post, cannot be withheld for not possessing additional educational qualification. In fact, in yet another judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others. In fact, in yet another judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others. vs. Rafiq Masih & Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that after retirement, no recovery can be made from an employee, in case there is no misrepresentation on his part, which is the case of the petitioner in the present matter. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned herein-above, this Court finds that the impugned orders dated 14.7.2014 and the one dated 10.4.2013, passed by the Respondent No. 7 are perverse and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as also by the learned Division Bench of this Court, hence, are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of recovery made from the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 6. The writ petition stands allowed.