PARAM HANS JHA, SON OF LATE MADHUKANT JHA, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO : 65, ANAND VIHAR SOCIETY, BHATIA BASTI, P.O. & P.S. Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, PROJECT BUILDING, P.O. & P.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the Office order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure-4) pertaining to cancellation the Time Bond Promotion/Selection Grade and office order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-7) by which the date of grant of the benefits under First Assured Career Progression has been shifted from 09.08.1999 to 21.03.2007 and for quashing the order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-8) whereby the benefits under the 2nd Assured Career Progression granted to the petitioner on 02.04.2004 has been cancelled and the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the memo dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-9) whereby the respondent no.2 has sought for recovery of the alleged excess amount and the petitioner has further prayed for direction to respondents for restoring the benefits of First Assured Career Progression/Selection Grade and to grant the benefits of 2nd Assured Career Progression with all the consequential benefits with interest.

(2.) Sans of unnecessary details, admitted factual position as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner joined on the post of Store Keeper in the year 1980, in the Drinking Water and Sanitation (Mech.) Division at Jamshedpur. In the year, 1991 the petitioner has been granted Time Bond Promotion by the order of the respondent no.3 with effect from 004.1990. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.03.2008, the respondent no.3 granted the benefits of 1st Assured Career progression Scheme to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 and also the 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme was granted on the same date with effect from 004.2004 in terms of Resolution dated 14.08.200 The petitioner retired on 30.06.2010 attaining the age of superannuation on the said post. The petitioner in the instant writ application has been aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure-4), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-7), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-8) and order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure- 9) which have been passed after retirement of the petitioner. It has been averred in the writ application that on the date of retirement from services, no departmental or criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuance of aforesaid orders, no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated due to non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order vide Annexure-9 has been issued without resorting to relevant provision of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the time of first and second ACP, the petitioner has not resorted to any fraud or any misrepresentation fraud on the part of the petitioner so there was no justification on the part of the respondents for recovery of the amount without invoking the relevant provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule.