The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of natural justice in service matters, emphasizing that no order with civil consequences can be withdrawn without following due process.

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing the order as contained in memo No.378 dated 27.3.2015 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Road Construction Department, Hazaribagh by which the representation filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S)No.5795 of 2011 has been rejected.

Further prayer has been made to make payment of arrear of salary from 1.1.2006 to the date of superannuation after quashing the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the Superintending Engineer whereby promotion granted to the petitioner under time bound scheme, ACP scheme and regular promotion on the post of Head Clerk has been cancelled after 5 years of superannuation of the petitioner.

Factual Matrix

2. The petitioner was appointed as correspondence clerk in Public Works Department, Hazaribagh on 1.9.1975 and after attaining the age of 60 years, he was superannuated w.e.f. 31.1.2007 from the post of Head Clerk in the Department of Road Construction, Road Circle, Hazaribagh.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on completion of ten years of his service he was given 1st Time Bound Promotion in the pay scale of Rs.680-695 w.e.f. 1.9.1985. During his service tenure, he had passed Departmental examination and had also cleared 2nd paper of Departmental Accounts examination on 27.9.1999.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after passing of the 2nd paper of Departmental Accounts Examination he was given promotion on the post of Head Clerk vide office order No.1116 dated 30.6.2000 and was posted as Head Clerk in Road Circle of Road Construction Department, Hazaribagh and had joined on the said post on 1.8.2000. He finally superannuated from the said post with effect from 31.1.2007.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after his retirement he received his gratuity, leave encashment and pension on the basis of his last pay drawn which was calculated on the basis of old pay scale.

The petitioner filed representation before the respondent No.3 for fixation of his pay on the basis of VIth Pay Revision Committee report and on his representation his pay has been fixed at Rs.18,230/-as basic pay from 1.7.2006 to 31.1.2007 vide pay fixation order dated 30.4.2009.

6. It is further specific case of the petitioner that after fixation of the pay scale on the basis of VIth pay revision committee report the same was sent to the District Accounts Officer, Hazaribagh for verification but the same was returned to the Superintending Engineer with a note that the Time Bound Promotion given to the petitioner was not proper on account of non-passing of final Departmental Accounts Examination though the order of exemption of the petitioner from passing the Departmental Examination was also submitted to the District Accounts Officer, Hazaribagh.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law when the same has been passed in gross violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S)No.5795 of 2011. The finding of the Superintending Engineer that promotion granted to the petitioner under Time Bound Scheme is against the Government Circular and is not inconsonance with the finding of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S)NO.5795 of 2011.

8. Learned Counsel further submits that the promotion granted to the petitioner as back as in the year 1985 under Time Bound Promotion Scheme and benefits granted under ACP scheme in the year 1999 cannot be cancelled after 5 years of superannuation of the petitioner.

In view of Circular dated 14.8.2002 which was made effective w.e.f. 9.8.1999 the petitioner is entitled to get 1st ACP on completion of 12 years of service and 2nd ACP on completion of 24 years of service and the said benefit cannot be withdrawn/cancelled after superannuation of the petitioner.

9. Learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order for rejection of the claim of the petitioner i