IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Abdul Rauf, S/o Late Ahmad Hussain and ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.157 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Concession - Recovery of Retiral Benefits - Assured Career Progression Scheme - W.P.(S) No.3561 of 2013 - [Clause-10 of Letters Patent] - [Order dated 06.10.2020] - [Assured Career Progression Scheme, W.P.(S) No.2461 of 2010] - The court discussed the Assured Career Progression Scheme and the recovery of retiral benefits. It highlighted the concession made by the State appellant and the similarity in the facts of the case with W.P.(S) No.2461 of 2010. The court emphasized that the order passed by the learned Single Judge based on the concession cannot be challenged by the State authority.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner was appointed as a Clerk and granted Assured Career Progression benefits. The respondent authorities ordered the recovery of excess amount paid to the Clerks, leading to the writ petition. The State conceded the similarity of the case with W.P.(S) No.2461 of 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the learned Single Judge based on the concession made by the State appellant cannot be challenged. It emphasized the similarity in the facts of the case with W.P.(S) No.2461 of 2010 and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Recovery of retiral benefits, Assured Career Progression Scheme, Concession by the State appellant, Legality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an order based on concession cannot be challenged by the State authority. It highlighted the similarity in the facts of the case with W.P.(S) No.2461 of 2010 and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio/visual quality.
2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3561 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, while allowing the writ petition, the respondents have been directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,99,257/- which has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which, the writ petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of payment.
3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder :-
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said action of the respondent authorities, has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3561 of 2013. In the aforesaid writ petition, the State has appeared and conceded the fact that the similar issue has already been decided in W.P.(S) No.2461 of 2010.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and on the concession of the State appellant, has allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 28.05.2015, as appended to I.A.No.6819 of 2019 with a direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.3,99,257/-which has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which, the writ petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of payment, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.
4. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned S.C.-I appearing for the appellant-State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from illegality, reason being that, the writ petitioner, although, was not entitled for the pay scale which was granted in his favour by way of upgradation (both) under the Assured Career Progression Scheme but the monetary benefit has been granted and therefore, the recovery which was directed to be done, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, since the writ petitioner was not entitled to get the aforesaid pay scale by way of upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.
Therefore, submission has been made that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
6. It is evident from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, reliance has been put upon the order passed by the Coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2461 of 2010.
7. It is evident
An order based on concession cannot be challenged by the State authority.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review can only be exercised if provided under the Statute, and decisions should not be recalled unilaterally and arbitrarily onc....
Reinstatement restores all benefits, including upgradation, despite the absence of backwages for the period out of service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.