VIBHUTI NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 21.2.2004 (Annexure-1), whereby the services of the petitioners have been recognised with effect from 1.4.1981 instead of 29.1.1981. Said order has also directed for recovery of the amount paid to the petitioners taking their date of recognition as 29.1.1981.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners were working in Rai Bahadur Tunki Sah Government Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital. hereinafter referred the as the College. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Provincialisation of Roads and Hospitals Act, 1947 by notification dated 29.1.1981 took over the College with effect from 1.4.1981. However, 33 employees' services, which included the petitioners, were recognised not from the date from which the College was taken over but from the date of notification dated 29.1.1981. Three of the employees, whose services were taken over with effect from 1.4.1981 but were senior to the 33 employees whose services were taken over with, effect from 29.1.1981, filed C.W.J.C. No. 2277 of 1999 (Dr. Deo Charan Sahni and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.) before this Court. This Court by order dated 24.7.2000 disposed of the writ application with the following observation: I do not wish to go into the validity or otherwise of the action in granting the scale with effect from 29.1.1981 in case of those 33 persons. As admittedly the petitioners herein are senior to them I am of the view that until the department takes any decision in the case of those 33 persons, the petitioners should be allowed parity of scale with them. Needless to clarify that if the State Government decides to cancel/modify the grant of scale of those 33 persons the same may be made applicable to the petitioners subject to such challenge as may be made by those 33 persons as indeed by these petitioners. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give the petitioners the parity of scale with those 33 persons subject to observations as made above. It goes without saying that as a result of grant of scale with effect from 29.1.1981 the petitioners will also be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law.

(3.) MR. Mukherjee, then submits that the direction contained in the impugned order for refund of the excess amount already paid is illegal. He points out that no fault or misrepresentation having been attributed to the petitioners no recovery can be made.