GIRISH KUMARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order contained in memo No. 6829 dated 20th November, 1998 issued by the Joint Director of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the second time bound promotion earlier granted in her favour has been cancelled from retrospective date after three years of her retirement.

(2.) THE case of petitioner is that she was appointed on 16th June, 1959 as skilled Artisan (Knitting and Embroidery) in the officer of Project Executive officer, Sim -dega. Her service was discontinued from 1st May, 1968 to 14th March, 1972. However, in pursuance of office order dated 24th February, 1972 issued by the Additional Director of Industry, Government of Bihar, she was appointed and rejoined in the services of the State.

(3.) IT is true that the petitioner having re -appointed in 1972, was not entitled for second time bound promotion but in the similar case of illegal promotion in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 (Supp) 1 SCC 18 in respected to recovery after retirement, the Supreme Court held : "Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would to be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The Principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed in the University Grant Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs."