Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand, Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Prem Nath Gupta, son of Late Kanhaiya Lal - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 434 of 2018 with I.A. No. 1718 of 2019 with L.P.A. No. 480 of 2018 with I.A. No. 10637 of 2019
Decided On : 20-12-2022
L.P.A. - Forest Department Policy Decision - Rules 1947, Rule 157(3)(J) - The court considered the Forest Department's policy decision dated 14.06.1988, which granted time-bound promotion to employees without passing the accounts examination. The court held that the policy decision was in conflict with Rule 157(3)(J) of the Rules 1947, which mandates passing the accounts examination for promotion. The court quashed the orders of the learned Single Judge and affirmed the grant of upgradation in pay scale to the employees. The court also ruled that recovery of excess payment from the employees was impermissible as there was no misrepresentation on their part. The court directed the State authority to calculate retirement/pensionary benefits for the retired employees within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners were granted time-bound promotion by the Forest Department based on a policy decision dated 14.06.1988, despite not passing the accounts examination. The State authority denied the promotion and sought recovery of excess payment. The writ petitioners approached the court, challenging the denial and recovery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Forest Department's policy decision conflicted with Rule 157(3)(J) of the Rules 1947, which mandates passing the accounts examination for promotion. The court quashed the denial of promotion and affirmed the grant of upgradation in pay scale to the employees. The court ruled that recovery of excess payment was impermissible as there was no misrepresentation on the part of the employees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Forest Department's policy decision, which granted time-bound promotion without passing the accounts examination, was valid in light of Rule 157(3)(J) of the Rules 1947. Another issue was whether recovery of excess payment from the employees was permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Forest Department's policy decision was in conflict with Rule 157(3)(J) of the Rules 1947, and therefore, the denial of promotion was quashed. The court also ruled that recovery of excess payment was impermissible as there was no misrepresentation on the part of the employees.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, quashed the denial of promotion, affirmed the grant of upgradation in pay scale, and directed the State authority to calculate retirement/pensionary benefits for the retired employees within three months.
JUDGMENT :
[Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]
1. L.P.A. Nos. 434 of 2018; 380 of 2018; 479 of 2018 and 480 of 2018 have been heard together as would appear from the order dated 06.01.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that since in L.P.A. No. 434 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 480 of 2018, due appearance has been made on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel, as such, these two matters may be disposed of by segregating L.P.A. Nos.380 of 2018 and 479 of 2018.
3. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to such submission.
4. In view of the submission made on behalf of the parties, L.P.A. Nos.380 of 2018 and 479 of 2018 are being segregated from L.P.A. Nos.434 of 2018 and 480 of 2018.
I.A. No. 1718 of 2019 in L.P.A. No. 434 of 2018:
5. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 171 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
6. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.
7. Heard the parties.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.
9. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 171 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.
10. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.
I.A. No. 10637 of 2019 in L.P.A. No. 480 of 2018:
11. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 193 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
12. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.
13. Heard the parties.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.
15. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 193 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.
16. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.
L.P.A. No. 434 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 480 of 2018:
17. Both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties.
18. These intra court appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are directed against the orders/judgments dated 19.01.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3573 of 2008 and in W.P.(S) No. 3566 of 2008 respectively, whereby and whereunder, the orders dated 20.06.2008, 23.08.2003 in W.P.(S) No. 3573 of 2008 and orders dated 10.10.2007, 27.12.2007 and 20.07.2005 in W.P.(S) No. 3566 of 2008 have been quashed by treating the writ petitioners entitled for upgradation in pay scale which has been negated on the ground that the writ petitioners have not passed the accounts examination.
19. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions required to be enumerated, read as under:
L.P.A. No. 434 of 2018:
The writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 06.04.1984 under the respondent-authority. The writ petitioner, vide order No. 137 dated 12.12.1998, communicated vide Memo No. 3395 dated 21.12.1998, was provided with first time bound promotion w.e.f. 06.04.1994 by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Anchal, Hazaribagh which was duly approved on 19.12.1998 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh East Forest Division, Hazaribagh.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that, all of a sudden, on 23.08.2003 vide office order No. 98 issued by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh the promotion given to the writ petitioner was cancelled without any show cause and before cancelling the same, no opportunity to represent his case was provided to the writ petitioner. The promotion given to the writ petitioner was cancelled on the ground tha
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a policy decision of a department cannot override statutory mandates, and recovery of excess payment is impermissible if there is no misrepres....
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.
Eligibility for benefits under the ACP/MACP Scheme is conditional upon passing relevant departmental examinations, which is mandatory for promotion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
