P.S.-SAMASTIPUR, DIST.-SAMASTIPUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Gumla, to release the amount of Rs. 57,519/ - in his favour which was deducted from the death -cum - retirement gratuity of the petitioner on the ground that excess payment had been made to the petitioner during the course of service. That order is only an intimation by the Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Gumla to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, which is contained in Annexure -1. It gives no reasons and details how and why such amount has been found to be excess payment to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petition under an apprehension that his first and second time bound promotions granted w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and 1.4.1985 by order of the Superintending Engineer dated 6.7.1991 (Annexure -2) have probably been treated as illegal and, therefore, some excess payment is sought to be recovered. However, the position has been made clear by Annexure -C annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of officials of the State of Jharkhand, which came to be created w.e.f. 15.11.2000. Annexure -A is a policy decision and circular of the State of Bihar dated 27.3.1987 which permits time bound promotion to an employee by counting the service in work charge establishment. Annexure -B is a letter from the Divisional Secretary of Water Hesources Department, Govt. of Bihar, dated 11.5.2002 seeking instruction in respect of this very writ petition from the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi, Jharkhand. Annexure - C is a letter issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi, dated 28.8.2002 sent to the Accountant General at Patna as well as at Ranchi.

(3.) That letter shows that petitioner 'spromotions were wrong and his time bound promotions have not been found illegal. In that letter, the stand of the Chief Engineer is that before 1977 when the petitioner was in work charge establishment, he was given certain promotions on the post of Fitter Grade - II and Fitter Grade -I and those have been found illegal and are being cancelled and on that account if any excess payment is detected, the same shall be realized from the petitioner.