LAKSHMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 15th January, 1998 (Annexure -2), whereby the Respondent No. 5 has raised objection regarding second time bound promotion given to the petitioner as far back as in the year 1939 after several years of his retirement. He has also prayed for quashing the order dated 16th August, 1998 (Annexure -3), whereby the Respondent No. 4 has informed the petitioner regarding recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,479.90 paise from the retiral dues.

(2.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that before the said orders, contained in Annexures -2 and 3, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was given first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion by order dated 30th August, 1989 and the promotional benefit was also given till his retirement on 31st January, 1998 without any objection from any authority. After his retirement, the Respondent No. 5 has raised objection regarding propriety of second time bound promotion given to the petitioner observing that the petitioner was not entitled to get second time bound promotion. On that basis, the monetary benefit given to the petitioner was calculated and a sum of Rs. 51,479.90 paise has been recovered from his retiral dues. It has been submitted that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner for getting the said amount and the said promotional benefits. On the basis of the order passed by the competent authority, the benefit of time bound promotion was given to the petitioner after completion of 25 years of his services. It has been submitted that the benefit, which has been given to the petitioner during his service tenure, cannot be recovered after his retirement and that too without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was given time bound promotion by order issued by the Chief Malaria Officer, Bihar, Patna vide his Memo No. 2665 dated 30th August, 1989. The petitioner retired in January, 1998 and till then, the promotional benefits were given to him. After retirement, the Respondent No. 5 raised an objection and observed that the second time bound promotion was not payable to the petitioner. However, no reason has been assigned as to what was the illegality for which the petitioner was responsible. The state respondents also did not examine the reasons and also did not issue any notice and provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the said objection, regarding his second time bound promotion and a sum of Rs. 51,479.90 paise has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner.