ATUL CHANDRA ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Application the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2001 issued under Memo No. 564 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka by which promotions granted to the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1980 in the I.A. trained scale and with effect from 1.4.1982 in the B.A. trained scale was cancelled and it was ordered that amounts paid to the petitioner should be recovered. According to the petitioner, he has worked for so many years and therefore, for the period he worked, the respondents have no right to make any order for recovery.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further states that no opportunity of hearing nor any notice was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order. On the earlier date, i.e. 14.2.2003, when this case was called out, there was no representation on behalf of the State respondents and therefore this Court had expressed displeasure and had ordered that if on the next date, no one was present on their behalf then this court would be compelled to restrain the respondents from drawing their salary. This order was passed in the backdrop of a grievance being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the respondents had not even complied with the interim order passed on 5.9.2001.

(3.) LET it be recorded that there was no order for personal appearance of the Officer referred to above but however, since he has appeared and has been very prompt in responding to his counsels communication, though given incorrectly, his promptitude is well appreciated by this Court. His appearance is however accordingly dispensed with.