The mandatory requirement of passing the Departmental Accounts Examination for up-gradation or promotion in the pay-scale, and the impermissibility of allowing the illegality to be perpetuated.

JUDGMENT :

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

I.A. No. 10951 of 2019

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 217 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10951 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 217 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 783 of 2019

6. The instant intra-court appeal is preferred against order/judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2725 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the order as contained in letters dated 24.11.2014 and 27.02.2015, by which decision was taken to recover an amount of Rs. 9,41,396/-out of which Rs. 3,34,700/-has been recovered from the leave encashment, have been quashed and set aside and direction has been passed to make payment of retiral benefit on the basis of “corrected” pay-scale. The writ petitioner-appellant is aggrieved by the part of order by which direction has been passed upon the respondents for extending retiral dues on the basis of “corrected” pay-scale.

7. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under:

The appellant-writ petitioner was appointed on 13.09.1977 and after rendering 37 years of service as Accounts Clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Chaibasa was retired on 30.06.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation.

After retirement when the retiral benefit was not extended to the writ petitioner, he submitted applications on 15.09.2014 and 15.10.2014 before the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Chaibasa for payment of GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Pension but the respondents vide letters dated 24.11.2014 and 27.02.2015 sought for explanation from the writ petitioner-appellant informing the objection that was raised by the Audit Team of the Finance Department with respect to extension of benefit of 1st Time Bound Promotion from 13.09.1987 without passing Departmental Accounts Examination and further the basis of fixation of higher pay-scale from 01.04.1981. The said fact was explained by the writ petitioner-appellant vide his reply dated 01.05.2015 stating that passing of the Departmental Accounts Examination is not to be looked into when the writ petitioner has been allowed to be superannuated from service after rendering 37 years of service and as such what he was getting the pay-scale at the time of last working day i.e. on the date of retirement, he is entitled to be paid the entire pensionary benefits on the basis of that pay-scale. But the concerned respondent did not accept the aforesaid reply taken decision for making of recovery of amount of Rs. 9,41,396/-out of which Rs. 3,34,700/-has been recovered.

Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2725 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2019 by which the decision of the authorities for making recovery as contained in letters dated 24.11.2014 and 27.02.2015 was quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondents to refund the recovered amount i.e. Rs. 3,34,700 and to pay the retiral dues to the writ petitioner on the basis of “corrected” pay-scale.

The writ petitioner-appellant being aggrieved with the part of order by which it has been held to make extend the pensionary dues on the basis of “corrected” pay-scale has filed the present intra-court appeal.

8. Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge while directing to make payment of the retiral dues on t