RAM PARAM PURUSHOTTAM S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; UNDER SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT; DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT; MINERAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision contained in Annexure- 1, dated 31.7.2015 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar is the cause of action for the petitioner to approach the High Court. By virtue of this decision, the respondent authorities have decided not only to annul the benefit of 1st ACP granted to the petitioner but also decided to effect recovery.

(2.) The short facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk some time in the year 1987 and worked in that capacity in the office of District Mining Officer, Munger. He was granted benefit of 1st ACP on 25.11.2004 with effect from 9.8.1999 as part of the benefit of stagnation after the ACP Rules 2003 became effective from 9.8.1999. No doubt, the petitioner has derived the advantage of such grant all along and he is on the verge of superannuation. Preparatory to retirement naturally the authorities start looking into the service book of such employees to work out their retiral dues and claims. During that course of examination it transpired that the petitioner was not eligible to be granted the benefit of 1st ACP at all because he had not passed the departmental accounts examination. Clarification was sought and it has emerged that some time in the year 1992, the petitioner had appeared in the departmental examination for accounts but he had not cleared his 1st paper though he did qualify in the 2nd paper. The result of the petitioner in the 1st paper was provisional and it was obligatory upon him to pass the 1st paper again meaning thereby that overall the petitioner had not passed the departmental examination which could entitle him for consideration for grant of benefit even under the ACP Rules.

(3.) In the writ application a pleading was made about participation and a plea is further taken that since the petitioner was never informed as to the outcome of the examination, he was unaware of the position and he was under the impression that he had already cleared the examination, therefore, never bothered to participate in yet another examination to clear paper I of the accounts examination. Such a plea cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner because burden of finding out the end result of the examination has to be on the examinee and not the examiner. The petitioner cannot claim that since results are communicated to the department, he was unaware of the position. Since passing of the departmental examination is a must, therefore, the petitioner has to ensure about its outcome.