DEO NARAYAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application is directed against the order dated May 12, 1993 as contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder the District Sub-Registrar, Katihar (respondent No. 4) in the light of the order of the Secretary to the I.G. Registration, Bihar, contained in letter No. 1434 dated October 27, 1989 and order of Collector dated July 20, 1992 has held that as the petitioner had not been confirmed, he was not entitled for more than one increment, but still as he has received more than one increment, a direction for recovery of the amount of Rs. 16,969.85 P. has been ordered on account of such alleged illegal withdrawal made by him.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as L.D. Assistant on April 2, 1973 vide order contained in Annexure-4 and joined service pursuant there to on April 9, 1973. He passed the Noting and Drafting Examination in the year 1974 and the Accountant Examination in the year 1978. On November 6, 1981, he was granted promotion also as U.D. Assistant and on April 19, 1989 he was allowed to cross the E.B. The Petitioner was paid his increment regularly after completion of first year of his joining the service. It is also stated that the service record of the petitioner is also satisfactory. However, when a gradation list was published on January 24, 1986 he discovered from it that the dates of his appointment etc. were wrongly shown. The petitioner thereafter, made representation before the I.G. Registration for making necessary correction in the said gradation list, whereupon it appears that it came to light to the concerned authorities that he had not been confirmed in the service and thus, as per the Rule 149 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, he was not entitled to draw more than one increment.

(3.) It appears that thereafter steps were taken for ascertaining the correct position and finally by the impugned order (Annexure- 1) recovery of Rupees 16,969.85 P. was directed to be made on account of the alleged illegal increments that the petitioner received. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order in the present writ application on various grounds including the alleged mala fide against respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, who are represented by Mr. Nazmul Hoda, learned Advocate.