KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure-1 to the writ petition is the order of the Town Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation. Wherein, it is clearly stated that pursuant to the decision taken by the Patna Municipal Corporation all Class-IV employees of the Corporation would be entitled to Assured Career Promotion (hereinafter referred to as ACP) on two stages as indicated therein. This order was issued under memo no. 1729 dated 24.8.2007. Petitioner was accordingly given the benefit and paid the emoluments accordingly. He is now visited with the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 by the Chief Enginner, Water Supply Division of the Corporation, wherein it is said that the ACP benefits have been given to the petitioner without approval of the Town Commissioner and as such it is being cancelled and all financial emoluments paid accordingly must be immediately recovered. Petitioner's challenging is simple. That once the Corporation took a decision in the matter and the Town Commissioner issued orders pursuant thereto, petitioners entitlement could not be denied of withheld. Petitioner having being paid his entitlement further approval of the Town Commissioner was not required, as it was an entitlement as a matter of law and not as a gratis for some other consideration.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 4, the Executive Officer, Water Supply Division of the Patna Water Board under the Patna Municipal Corporation. All that is said is, notwithstanding the decision of the Corporation and notwithstanding the order of the Town Commissioner in each individual case approval of Town Commissioner was further required, which was not obtained, as such, the benefits of ACP, as granted to the petitioner, had rightly been withdrawn and order of recovery made. This Court in order dated 22.6.2009 noticed that there was so dispute with regard to entitlement. The dispute was with regard to the authority competent to order the payment, which was no dispute, as all decisions have already been taken and payments were to be made mechanically and automatically.

(3.) From the facts stated above, it is apparent that some mischief was being played. Entitlement and correctness of the amount is not denied but on a shrewd technicality the petitioner has been sought to be harassed by orders of recovery of the amount paid to him. Let it not be forgetting that petitioner is a Class-IV employee, such actions on part of the respondents, who are State is not expected and it must be condmned. Thus, Annexure-4 the order of the Chief Engineer is quashed. No part of benefits of ACP, as given to the petitioner, would be liable to be refunded and/or recovered from the petitioner.