The Patna High Court in a petition challenging an order, wherein the date of promotion of the petitioners was shifted held that no recovery can be effected from retired employees or employees who have been given excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay without any fraud and misrepresentation on their part.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners were appointed to the post of correspondence clerk in 1978 and 1972 respectively. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk in 1996. One Ram Shankar Singh had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court in 2009 claiming that he was senior to Petitioner No. 1 and since Petitioner No. 1 was granted promotion to the post of head clerk from 01.01.1996, then he should also be granted promotion from that date only. The court, therein directed Chief Engineer Central Design Organization to consider the case of the petitioner after which the respondents shifted the date of promotion of Petitioner No. 1 from 01.01.1996 to 01.04.2008 as Head Clerk and of Petitioner No. 2 from 01.01.1996 to 01.02.2001. The present petition has been filed challenging this impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that before issuing the present impugned order no notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and the present impugned order has been passed is in clear violation of the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. Further, the counsel relied on the decision in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih in support of his submissions.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that he respondents after considering all facts, the Chief Engineer, Central Design and Research, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna passed a reasoned order after clarifying all the points vide memo and there is no illegalities or irregularities in the present case.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the respondents have not levelled any allegation against the petitioners herein that they have misrepresented or committed fraud for the purpose of wrong fixation of pay, grant of grand pay, in fact, the respondents have conceded that wrong pay fixation was done on account of their mistake and according to the principle of law settled in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, no recovery can be affected from the petitioners, firstly, since they have already attained the age of superannuation prior to the passing of the order recovery and secondly since there have been no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioners leading to wrong pay fixation/wrong grant of grade pay though the respondent authorities are precluded from making any recovery from the petitioners.
The court stated that the present case of squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih especially since the petitioners have already superannuated and secondly it is a mistake of the respondents admittedly, which is excess payment to the petitioners herein on account of wrong fixation of pay.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition to quash the impugned order and further directed the respondent authorities to act accordingly and pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks.
Case Title: Bikrama Singh and Anr. vs State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3455 of 2012
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Banwari Sharma and Mr. Shiv Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S.C-9
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
