PRANAV KANT BABBAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of Annexure- 7, dated 16.2.2016, the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar has modified the order from which the benefit of 1st ACP would be given to the petitioner i.e. 27.9.2003 to 13.10.2007. As a consequence thereof, the benefit of 2nd ACP has also been annulled and even the order for recovery has been passed. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, who is working on the post of an Accounts Clerk, informs the Court that the decision so taken in terms of Annexure- 7 is not only irrational but also arbitrary. If this decision is not interfered with, it will have the effect of allowing the respondents to reward their own inefficiency and inaction when nothing is attributable to the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the petitioner was appointed initially in the year 1991 and appeared in the departmental examination for accounts in the year 1996. He cleared two papers. From 1996 till 2004, no departmental examination was conducted, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of passing the third paper in the accounts which could have facilitated the benefits of 1st ACP, increment etc. When the examination was held in the year 2006, he participated and passed the said examination for which the result was declared in the year 2007. It is in this context that the respondents have changed the date of grant of benefit of 1st ACP from 27.9.2003 to 13.10.2007.

(3.) The other argument is that the petitioner did not play any role in award of the benefit of ACP. It was a conscious decision taken by the respondents and benefit was granted by a common notification to large number of persons, which is Annexure- 5 to the writ application. After so many years, the decision to not only change the date for grant of such benefit but even effect recovery is irrational and unjustified. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 4 SCC 334 . In matters of such recovery the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded its opinion in paragraph 18 as under :