SURENDRA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ applications involve an identical issue, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners of all these writ applications, except CWJC No. 1744 of 2020, would submit that the petitioners were granted the benefit of ACP with an open eye by the respondents and after long duration of granting such benefit of ACP, they have become wise and took decision to not only nullify the benefit granted to the petitioners recalling the benefit of ACP but also decided to recover the amount allegedly paid in excess to the entitlement of the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that there was no misrepresentation or fraud practiced by these petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners of CWJC No. 1744 of 2020, has made exhaustive submissions. He referred to Annexure-16, the chart prepared by the petitioners, to demonstrate that the petitioners were granted first ACP in 2008 and thereafter second ACP was granted to them in 2010 to 2013. Mr. Giri with reference to the chart submitted that the petitioners were treated as literate constables and as such they were granted benefit of first ACP in the pay scale of ASI and in the pay-scale of SI at the time of grant of second ACP. He submits that the pay scale of literate constable with other Sepoy was the same and the petitioners were holding qualification of matriculate which was equivalent to qualification of the literate constable and the respondents have treated the petitioners as literate constables in the matter of grant of the benefit of ACP as literate constable and there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioners. He submits with reference to the decisions of this Court contained in Annexures 7 and 12 to contend that twice the matter was considered by this Court and the respondents were directed to take fresh decision particularly on the issue of recovery part. Mr. Giri learned senior counsel submits that the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 14 and 15 in CWJC No.1744 of 2020 are bad in law as the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-12 was not considered in proper perspective particularly the recovery part.