SITA RAM SANCHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Typist -cum -Copyist on temporary basis on 15.7.1970 in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Thereafter the petitioner went on working without any break. Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Revenue and Land Reforms Department issued a letter, vide memo No. 245/R(a) dated 19.3.1996 (Annexure 3) stipulating therein that the service period of the Typist and Copyist shall be counted from the date of their appointment and the time bound promotion shall be given to them accordingly. Pursuant to that letter, petitioner was given first time bound promotion with effect from 13.1.1986 and the second time bound promotion with effect from 16.7.1995. Subsequently, under memo No. 1247 dated 2.12.1996 (Annexure 5) the date of granting of first time bound promotion was reviewed and it was made effective with effect from 1.4.1981 Instead of 13.1.1986. In due course, when the service record of the petitioner was sent for verification with respect to time bound promotion, Revenue and Land Reforms Department gave concurrence of granting of second time bound promotion with effect from 16.7.1995. Thereafter under memo No. 601 dated 19.6.2003 service of the petitioner was confirmed with effect from 8.7.1980 and after one year, petitioner got retired from service on 30.6.2004 and the pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 5325/ -. However, after more than two years of the retirement, Joint Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent No. 2 Issued a letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, respondent No. 5, under memo No. 2623 dated 10.8.2006 (Annexure 10) communicating therein that the petitioner is entitled to first time bound promotion with effect from 9.8.1999 In stead of 1.4.1981 and second time bound promotion with effect from 8.7.2004 in stead of 16.7.1995 as the services of the petitioner has been confirmed with effect from 8.7.1980 and therefore, excess payment made to the petitioner be recovered. Accordingly, respondent No. 5 vide his letter an contained in memo No. 2097 dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure 13) communicated the same to the petitioner and directed the concerned official to recover the excess amount from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner.

(2.) BEING aggrieved with the said letters as contained in Annexures 10 and 13, this writ application has been filed wherein prayer has been made to quash both the letters.

(3.) THE stand taken on behalf of the State is the same as it is under Annexures 10 and 13.