SHIV NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order, contained in Memo no. 139 dated 17.10.98 passed by the Employees ' State Insurance Hospital, Adityapur in the district of West Singhbhum, whereby and whereudner a sum of Rs. 11.697/ - has been sought to be recovered on account of the alleged excess payment made because of wrong grant of second time bound promotion during the period 1.4.1986 to 2.1.1993.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Peon in the Department of Revenue in Tractor Organisation Scheme on 22.9.1958. His services were, however, terminated due to general retrenchment vide. G.O. no. 309 dated 16.2.1967 with effect from 1.9.1967 (forenoon). Later he was given appointment with effect from 3.1.1968 under the Employees ' State Insurance Scheme under A.M.O. 'soffice order no.19 dated 15.1.1968. Thus, the period of breakage in his service of the State Government is for about four months. However, it is not disputed that the past service of the petitioner was counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 105 of the Bihar Pension Rules read with Government instruction contained in Memo No. Pen 1040/69 - -8990/F Patna, dated 13.11.1969 of the Finance Department, contained in Annexure -3, condoning the said break in his service.

(3.) THIS court ' finds substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not the case of the Respondents that the said alleged excess payment by virtue of grant of second time bound promotion was made to the petitioner on account of any mis -representation by him. The Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana & others (supra) held :