VIJAY KUMAR SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner has retired from the post of Headmaster on 31 st of January, 2006. Promotion on the post of Headmaster was given somewhere, in the year, 1995, and thereafter, without application of mind, arbitrarily, capriciously, mala fide and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner an order, at Annexure -3, dated 21st of April, 2008, has been passed by Respondent No. 4, whereby a sizeable amount has been ordered to be deducted on the ground that promotion which was given before more than one dozen years was wrongly given and, therefore, at Annexure -3, the impugned order was passed by Respondent No. 4 and in fact, during the pendency of this writ petition, amount at Rs. 74,224/ - (Seventy Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four) has been deducted. A detailed calculation is annexed as Annexure -E/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and that too, with highly illegible figures which was never supplied to the petitioner, by way of notice and no hearing has ever been given by Respondent No. 4 and, therefore, impugned order, at Annexure -3, dated 21st of April, 2008, deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently already deducted amount may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner with interest.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of a mistaken promotion. Once, there is an error, it has to be rectified and, therefore, an order, at Annexure -3, was passed by Respondent No. 4, dated 21st of April, 2008, for returning of the benefits taken by the present petitioner for wrongly given promotion and as the amount was never deposited, it has been deducted, as stated in the counter affidavit on the basis of the calculation, at Annexure -E/1 to the counter affidavit.

(3.) THAT the promotion which was given to the petitioner was a wrongly given promotion. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in fact, the promotional benefits can be given from the date which he assumed charge of the promoted post, never financial benefits can be given with retrospective effect. Since this was gross illegal, there was an audit's objection and, therefore, the amount has been ordered to be deducted. Be that as it may, but, the fact remains that there is no notice given to the petitioner nor any opportunity has been given to the petitioner and, therefore, before the accrued right or before the vested right of the petitioner is being taken away, at least, opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner. In the facts of the present case, before withdrawing the benefits which were already given to the petitioner prior to his retirement cannot' be taken away without giving any notice and that too, at a much belated stage, after retirement. 4 In view of the aforesaid facts, I hereby, quash and set aside, the order at Annexure -3 as well as a decision taken by the respondents to deduct an amount of Rs. 74,224/ - (Seventy Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four) which is a calculation given at Annexure -E/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and liberty is reserved with the respondents to initiate action, in accordance with law, and at least, after following the principles of natural justice.