PARWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. These two petitioners are widows of two employees who were serving the Revenue and Land Reforms Department under the office of Settlement Officer on the post of Moharrir having been appointed on 1.11.1978 and 31.10.1979 respectively. Husbands of these petitioners were granted the benefits of first and second ACP by an order dated 10th August 2007 (Annexure-4) with effect from 9th August 1999, so for as it relates to the first ACP. While the husband of the petitioner No. 1 was granted the benefit of second ACP with effect from 1st November 2002, the husband of the petitioner No. 2 got it with effect from 05th November 2003. Husband of the petitioner No. 1 retired on 31st May 2011 while the husband of the petitioner No. 2 died in harness on 08th June 2012.

(2.) These two petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the common impugned order contained at Annexure-5 dated 19th October 2012 by which, the grant of ACP has been cancelled in cases of their husbands on the grounds that they had availed of one promotion during their career. This impugned order has also been passed in cases of other employees holding the post of Moharrir in Grade-III under the same department. The defence of these two petitioners- is that their husbands had approached the Patna High Court way back in 1992 in CWJC No. 3167/92 (R) which was decided along with CWJC No. 1145/97 (R) vide judgment dated 24th August 1999. One of the petitioner's husband had also filed a similar writ petition being CWJC No. 3853/92 (R) which was also decided along with another writ petition being CWJC No. 131/93 (R) by the common judgment dated 19th July 2000. It is submitted that both the judgments are annexed as Annexure-6 series to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(3.) A perusal of the same would indicate that the learned Single Bench in the said writ petitions held that the respondent should not disturb the petitioners from the post of Moharrir and at best, should treat the orders of promotion as recruitment/appointment to the post of Moharrir. The said writ petitions were preferred being aggrieved by cancellation of their promotion to the post of Moharrir and they were reverted to the Class-IV post. It is submitted that consequent to the passing of the aforesaid judgment which attained finality, an endorsement in the service book of the husbands of the respective petitioners was also made which are annexed as Annexure-3 and are evident from pages-33 and 35 of the writ petition. Such endorsements dated 22nd July 2010 in the case of husband of the petitioner No. 1 and 25th September 2010 in the case of second petitioner also make reference to the judgments passed in CWJC No. 3853/92 (R) and CWJC No. 3167/92 (R) as also other analogous cases being CWJC No. 131/92 (R). In such circumstances, it is submitted that after the death of the husbands of the present petitioners, as aforesaid, the impugned order so far as it concerns the present petitioners, is wholly bad in law and has been passed without any opportunity or show-cause notice. It is also submitted that the very ground for cancellation of grant of first ACP, as indicated in the impugned order, is also not made out in view of the aforesaid fact.