YUDHISTHIR MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against an order, dated 10th June, 2009 (Annexure 5 to the Memo of the petition), passed by the respondents, whereby promotion given to the petitioners has been withdrawn with a further order for recovery of the excess salary drawn by the petitioners. Promotion was given to the petitioners in the year 1999 with effect from 1995. The promotion given to the petitioners have been withdrawn after long lapse of time vide the aforesaid office order dated 10th June. 2009. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the promotion, which was given by the respondents in the year 1999 with effect from 1995, has been withdrawn in the year 2009 without giving any notice or any opportunity of being heard, as stated in the para 14 of the memo of the petition. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioners they could have point out that there is no illegality in grant of promotion and payment of salary. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that once payment of salary is made by the respondents without any fault of the petitioners, there can not be order of recovery passed by the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Abhimanyu Gope v. State of Jharkhand & others,2006 4 JLJR 483. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 8th February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 264 of 2010.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that the promotion given to the petitioners were not in accordance with law and hence there is no illegality in withdrawing the same vide order dated 10th June, 2009 (Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition) and the order of recovery passed in the impugned order is also in consonance with law.

(3.) Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I, hereby, quash and set aside the order dated 10th June, 2005, passed by the respondents, mainly for the following facts and reasons: