M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. Smt. Normi Topno, on being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the action of recovery of the excess payment from her pension and gratuity, has filed this letters patent appeal.

2. The appellant got retired from service on 30.09.1999 as A.N.M from Primary Health Centre, Boarijor, Godda. Thereupon her pension papers were sent to the Accountant General. On scrutiny, the Accountant General found that she was wrongly granted Time Bound Promotion. Therefore, the Accountant General returned the papers for clarification. The Department scrutinized the papers and found that the appellant was wrongly given Time Bound Promotion. Therefore, pension papers were forwarded to the Accountant General for recovery of Rs. 50,456/-, the excess amount paid to her from her pension/Gratuity. Challenging the said action of the authorities, Smt. Normi Topno filed a writ petition in W.P.(S) No. 2668 of 2003 before the learned Single Judge. The same was dismissed on 25.01.2006 holding that the action of recovery is justified in view of the Division Ranch Judgment in State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. (Smt.) Girish Kumari Prasad and Ors. and Ram Chandra Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2005 (2) JLJR 705.

3. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this present appeal.

4. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, the Division Bench felt that the core question, which has to be answered in this case, has to be dealt with by the Larger Bench since the said question has not been discussed and decided in Division Bench judgments in (Smt.) Girish Kumari Prasads Case and Ram Chandra Singhs case 2005 (2) JLJR 705, relied upon by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, referred the matter for hearing by Larger Bench of three Judges with the following question framed by the learned Division Bench.

Whether, without cancelling the order of promotion by any competent authority and merely on the recommendation of audit objection, the order of promotion can be treated to be illegal and thereby pension and other retrial benefits can be reduced?

5. On the basis of the above question framed by the Division Bench, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench.

6. The short facts, which are required for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

(i) Smt. Normi Topno was appointed as a Trained Dai in the Health Department in the year 1967.

(ii) She was promoted to A.N.M. by the Director of Health Services by the order dated 24.04.1980.

(iii) Thereupon she joined as A.N.M. on 06.05.1980.

(iv) She was given Time Bound Promotion on 15.02.1990 with effect from 16.04.1981.

(v) The Second Time Bound Promotion was given to her on 16.04.1994.

(vi) On 30.09.1999 she was superannuated as A.N.M. from Primary Health Centre, Boarijor, Godda.

(vii) After retirement, her pension papers were sent to the Accountant General on 09.02.2001.

(viii) Since her retiral benefits were not given in time, she moved the High Court and in pursuance of the order, she got the benefit in August 2003.

(ix) In the meantime, the pension papers were sent to the Accountant General on 09.02.2001.

(x) On 18.03.2001, the papers were returned by the Accountant General seeking for a clarification, since according to the Accountant General petitioner was wrongly granted Time Bound Promotion as she was initially appointed as Trained Dai.

(xi) When the Department scrutinized the papers, it found that the appellant was wrongly given First Time Bound Promotion on 15.02.1990 with effect from 16.04.1981 and again on 15.02.1996 she was given Second Time Bound Promotion with effect from 16.04.1994. Therefore, the respondent-authorities passed an order dated 13.03.2007 for recovery of Rs. 50,456/- from her pension and gratuity which was said to be paid in excess.

(xii) Challenging the said action of the respondents, writ petition in W.P.(S) No. 2668 of 2003 was filed and the same was dismissed by the Single Judge holding that the order of recovery from the Pens