RAM KISHORE SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by respondent No. 5 dated 10th December, 2002 at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition whereby it has been held by respondent No. 5 that promotion which was given to the present petitioner was wrong and the petitioner was not entitled for salary of the Head Master on the basis of report given by Accountant General Office, Patna, Bihar.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that no inquiry, no show - cause notice and no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before passing the order at Annexure 4 dated 10th December, 2002. At least an opportunity of being heard would have been given to the petitioner. Initially he was given B.A. Trained Scale from 1975 and, thereafter, he was promoted as Head Master, which was true, correct, legal and in consonance with law. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that never any direction was given by Accountant General Office, Patna, Bihar that pay scale given to the petitioner on the post of Head Master was illegal and, therefore, before coming to the conclusion by respondent No. 5 vide order dated 10th December, 2002 that petitioner was not entitled for the salary for the post of Head Master, at least a notice and opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner. The basis which is referred at Annexure 4 is a report given by Accountant General Office, Patna, Bihar especially P.P.O. No. 001666 is of no help to the petitioner. Looking to Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition also, it appears that Accountant General Office, Patna, Bihar has fixed the pension of the petitioner as per their own calculation and they have returned the service book of the present petitioner. Even looking to Annexure 5, never any direction was given by Accountant General Office and, therefore, the benefit which was already given or accrued in favour of the petitioner can not be taken away, ex -parte and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. After the retirement of the present petitioner, impugned order has been passed.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who has submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have fixed the pension of the present petitioner as he retired on 30th September, 2002 and, thereafter service book was returned. There was some discrepancy in the pay scale, but, never a direction was given to the concerned departments of the respondent -State that without holding any inquiry and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the amount should be deducted. Even looking to the order at Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition, never such direction was given to the department of the State to pass an order at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition.