BHARAT LAL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER files the present writ application because he was aggrieved by an order dated 11.4.2000 contained in Annexure -2. By virtue of this order the pension and other retiral dues were authorized but at a reduced pay scale. But prior to Annexure -2 order no. 3 dated 14.1.2000 came to be passed by the District Judge, Purnia. The above order has been brought on record as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 6. By virtue of the decision contained in Annexure -A the earlier promotions granted to four employees of the Civil Court had to be revised. There was apparent mistake which was discovered at the time of superannuation of these employees. The time bound promotions, a creation on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee was wrongly applied and even the period of service not rendered by petitioner as a State employee was reckoned in granting the promotion. No doubt the benefit occurring out of this promotion order was enforced for a long time and the mistake was only discovered at the time of fixation of pension of some other employees. Annexure -A gives the reason for the decision. The reason is further supported by the statement which has been made in the counter affidavit in this regard. This Court does not find any fault with the reasoning and the consequent conclusion which has been arrived at. If there is no legal infirmity with Annexure -A the consequential order will follow and the order dated 11.4.2000 which is the impugned Annexure -2 will be the consequence of Annexure -A. If the Court is not inclined to interfere with Annexure -A because of the reason indicated above then there is absolutely no occasion to interfere with Annexure -2, the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was allowed this benefit in the wisdom of the respondents and no fault was found with the same till he reached the age of superannuation. Now to recover money at this stage would be a harsh order and also contrary to public policy as such. He also states that there was no misrepresentation or fraud which was committed by him.