PATNA HIGH COURT KAMESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA,RANJIT SINGH Vs. MAYA DEVI,STATE OF BIHAR HONBLE JUDGES:NAVIN SINHA, J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the. petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State..

(2.) THE petitioner, on 23.3.1968, was appointed as a Skilled Helper in the work charge establishment in the Koshi Project. On 1.1.1972 he was promoted to the post of Welder -2 in the work charge establishment on a pay scale of Rs. 240 -396/ - and was given revised scale thereof from time to time. It is his further case that a policy decision was taken in August 1981. with concurrence of the Finance Department to make permanent all such persons in the work charge establishment who had completed five years as on 1.4.1977. Consequently by order dated 29.9.1981 the petitioner was brought into the regular establishment with effect from 1.4.1977. He was then granted 1st time bound promotion on 26.4.1995 with effect from 27.3.1987 alongwith replacement scale. The promotions given to him came to be cancelled on 19.3.2004 without any notice to him on the ground that he was not entitled to the same and reverted him back to his post as Skilled Helper with orders for recovery. He filed a representation on 23.1.2006 in which amongst other things he also pointed out that others similarly situated who came to be regularized have since retired and were getting their pension on the basis of their promotional salary. Learned Counsel next relies upon a circular dated 27.3.1987 issued by the Finance Department with regard to grant of selection grade and time bound promotion to persons in the work charge establishment. From Clause 3(b) thereof the submission is that the period spent in the work charge establishment was also, required to be counted for the purpose of time bound promotion. In that view of the matter in the background of his appointment in the work charge establishment on 23.3.1968 he was also entitled to second time bound promotion for which he became eligible prior to its abolition with effect from 1.1.1996. During pendency of the writ application the respondents have suo motu reconsidered and passed fresh order as appended at Annexure -A to the counter affidavit. It states that promotion of the petitioner to the post of Welder -2 on 1.1.1972 shall be deemed to be a fresh appointment since he was not eligible to be promoted. In that view of the matter he was not entitled to the second time bound promotion. However reliance by the petitioner on the circular dated 27.3.1987 as noticed above has not been denied. Neither there is denial that in pursuance of a policy decision the petitioner earlier came to be regularized from 'work charge establishment, which order has not been annulled, modified or reviewed.

(3.) IN pursuance of the order dated 27.9.2066 at Annexure -A to the counter affidavit orders for recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner have been passed. However no reason has been assigned for reduction of the pay scale of the petitioner in pursuance of the time bound promotions as originally granted to him.