Paras Nath Singh Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. [2009] INSC 806 (21 April 2009)
Judgment
REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2671 OF
2009 (Arising out of SLP)No.18372 of 2007) Paras Nath Singh ...Appellant Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. ...Respondents
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
The
appellant was appointed on the post of Orderly in the Department of Planning
and Development in the State of Bihar and he has since retired. In 1972, more
precisely on 29th of August, 1972, the appellant was promoted to the post of
Machine Boy and subsequent to such promotion, he was made Routine Clerk on 13th
of June, 1974 and was allowed to function as such on the said post. On 15th of
April, 1995, the appellant was given provisional First Time Bound Promotion
with effect 2 from 13th of June, 1984. After about 10 years, more precisely on
19th of September, 2005, the First Time Bound Promotion granted to the
appellant was cancelled. In view of such cancellation of promotion, direction
was issued by the State/Respondent to recover Rs. 1,01,529.50 from the salary
of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month.
3.
Aggrieved
by the aforesaid order directing recovery, the appellant filed a writ petition
before the High Court of Judicature at Patna contending that since the time
bound promotion given to him was at the fag end of his employment and that the
appellant, once having worked in the time bound promotional post, recovery
against him was not justified. The writ petition, however, was dismissed by a
learned Judge of the High Court and affirmed by a Division Bench of the High
Court in a Letters Patent Appeal.
4.
Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant has filed this special leave petition, which on grant
of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
5.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the
State Authorities had allowed the appellant to work for about 10 years and paid
the salary at the enhanced rate, in which the appellant had no role to play
except that he had given an undertaking to the Authorities that in the event,
his First Time Bound Promotion was cancelled, in that case, he would be bound
to refund the same.
6.
Having
considered the fact that the appellant was only a Class IV employee in the
State of Bihar and almost an illiterate person and did not know the
implications of giving such undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and
misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount being not so
excessive, in particular Rs. 1,01,529.50, out of which certain amount has
already been recovered from the salary of the appellant by the State
Authorities, we are of the view that a lenient view should be taken and the
amount already paid by the State Authorities to the appellant shall not be
recovered.
7.
However,
whatever amount that has already been recovered, shall not be paid back to the
appellant.
8.
In
view of the above, the impugned Judgments of the High Court are set aside and
the writ petition filed by the appellant stands allowed. For the reasons
aforesaid, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
There will be no
order as to costs.
........................J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
........................J.
New
Delhi;
Back
Pages: 1 2
