LAWS(JHAR)-2020-10-17

BIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On October 07, 2020
BIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 26.8.2011, whereby the time bound promotion given on 04.6.1992 was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not pass the departmental accounts examination. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order no. 58 dated 19.4.2012, whereby an order was passed for deduction of Rs.1,10,751/- in which first instalment of Rs.10,751/- was to be deducted in the month of April, 2012 and the rest in 10 monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner has not pressed prayer no. 1 (iii) and (iv).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now it is well settled that the benefit already granted cannot be withdrawn after a long time. He further submits that the petitioner has passed the departmental examination in the year 2006 and as such, he is duly entitled for first A.C.P. after passing of the departmental examination and thereafter for the second A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others vrs. Dhananjay Kumar,2020 SCCOnLineJhar 196. He further submits that the recovery made by the respondents is against the settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KUSHESWAR NATH PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, 2013 12 SCC 580. In the above referred decision, it has been held that an employee is not at fault if the time bound promotion is given to him much earlier and recovery can be permitted only in such cases where the employee concerned is guilty of producing forged certificate for the appointment or got the benefit due to misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his argument by submitting that since the petitioner has passed the departmental examination, he is duly entitled for his 1st A.C.P which has already been granted to him; as such, his second A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. should be regularized in terms of the government resolution.