The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law in force at the time of eligibility for financial upgradations shall govern the entitlement of the employee, and there are limitations on claiming benefits under new rules.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

This is an assigned matter vide order dated 31st October 2020 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

2. The High Court of Jharkhand is in appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of 1916 constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna (as adopted by the High Court of Jharkhand) against the order dated 11th April 2017 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7563 of 2012.

3. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1) was aggrieved by the order dated 21st September 2012 by which financial upgradations extended to him in the form of 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- w.e.f. 1st December 2000 and 3rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- w.e.f. 1st September 2008 were withdrawn, modified and reduced to lower scales of pay. The consequential order as contained in Memo dated 18th December 2012 of recovery of Rs.5,98,509/- was also under challenge in the writ petition.

4. The learned writ Court held that on the date of consideration for grant of financial upgradations there were promotional avenues for the post of Cashier by virtue of coming into force the Jharkhand High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003 w.e.f. 1st January 2003 and, therefore, the writ petitioner was entitled for grant of scale of pay of Rs.10,000-15,200/- in the form of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 1st December 2000 and not as per Appendix-1 to the Resolution dated 14th August 2002 whereunder the conditions for grant of ACPs have been prescribed.

5. The learned Single Judge has held as under :

“11. From the aforementioned fact, it is quite clear that there exists hierarchy for the post of Cashier. Since there was a promotional avenue/ hierarchy for the post of Cashier, the fixation of pay scale of the petitioner cannot be as per Schedule-I of the resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 (Scheme of ACP). Thus, the objection of the State that the petitioner is entitled to get the up-gradation as per Schedule-I, cannot be accepted. The petitioner has rightly been provided the up-gradation vide order dated 15.04.2005 as 1st up-gradation in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2000 as 2nd up-gradation. Since, the Rules of Jharkhand High Court provides for promotional avenue for the Cashier, which was not there in the Rules of Patna High Court and since the petitioner is an employee of the Jharkhand High Court, it is the Rules of Jharkhand High Court which will govern the case of the petitioner. Further as it has been held above that the Schedule-I of the resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002, is not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner has rightly been given the up-gradation of pay scale vide order dated 15.04.2005, as contained in Memo no. 22/Acctts., and is entitled to get all consequential benefits.”

6. As a consequence of the aforesaid findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge, the order of recovery dated 18th December 2012 was also quashed by the Court.

7. Mr. A. K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised three-fold contentions: (i) financial upgradation to an employee is granted in terms of the applicable rules as on the date the employee attained eligibility, (ii) respondent no.1 whose service conditions were prescribed under Rules of 1997 is entitled for scale of pay as prescribed under Appendix-1 to Resolution Dated 14th August 2002 as the post of Cashier was a solitary post without any promotional avenue, and (iii) excess payment made on account of a mistake by the employer even though there was no misrepresentation or suppression of fact by the employee can be recovered.

8. The main contention raised by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, is that it is the law which was in force on the date of consideration for grant of financial upgradation that