THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA Vs. SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, S/O SRI GAGANDEO PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA JUNIOR ENGINEER, DESIGN & PLANNING DIVISION NO.2, ANISABAD, PATNA, PERMANENT R/O VILL.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra-Court Appeal, by the State, is against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 731 of 2004 (Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava Vs. The State of Bihar & Others) .

(2.) By the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the order of the State Government contained in Memo No. 709 dated 01.09.2003 and the follow up order under Memo No. 1163 dated 18.10.2003, being Annexure 1 series, were set aside. By the aforesaid orders, which were impugned in the writ petition, the first and the second time bound promotions, which were granted to the writ petitioner, respondent in this appeal, with effect from 01.04.1981 and 19.02.1994, were now sought to be cancelled/withdrawn and the financial benefits, accrued in the meantime, were ordered to be recovered from his salary. It may be noted here that the writ petitioner, respondent in this appeal, superannuated on 31.05.2004. The learned Single Judge set aside the orders of the State Government and debarred it from recovering any amount holding that before coming to the conclusion that the time bound promotions were wrongly granted, no explanation was called for from the employee who was still in service. It was a one sided decision taken. The learned Single Judge also noticed that as and when the promotions were granted, the writ petitioner had no role to play. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge, relying on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ram Sharan Prasad Singh, 2007 (Supp) PLJR 223 , allowed the writ petition. State is in appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the time bound promotions, though granted by the Department, were subject to ultimate approval by the Department of Finance. The promotions, having been granted, ultimately the Department of Finance rejected the grants and substantially altered the dates, as such, State was within its right to correct its mistake and recover the amounts.