JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order as contained in memo no.850 dated 26th December, 2019 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4, whereby the promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of “Tracer” in the year 1994 has arbitrarily been cancelled after lapse of about eight years of his retirement and it has further been ordered that his pay scale should be modified as per his original post of Chainman as well as steps be taken for modification in his pension.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar orders dated 26th December, 2019 issued by the respondent no.4 have already been set aside by a Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.298 of 2020 (Arun Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and W.P.(S) no.770 of 2020 (Umesh Kumar Thakur Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). Learned counsel for the petitioner also produces copies of the orders dated 17th October, 2020 passed in the aforesaid writ petitions.

3. On perusal of the order dated 17th October, 2020 passed in W.P.(S) 298 of 2020, it appears that the petitioner of the said case had challenged the office order dated 26th December, 2019, whereby the promotion granted to him to the post of junior accounts clerk in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was cancelled. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-

“12. However, in the present case letter no. 335 dated 16.09.1992 was applicable. At that time it was not required to send letter to the Public Service Commission. The petitioner has already worked for more than 11 years thereafter this in the light of judgment rendered in “Kusheswar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in Manu/SC/0837/2013, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“9. Mr. Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Accountant General drew our attention to another judgment of this Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. V. State of Uttrakhand and Ors, reported in Manu/SC/0656/2012: (2012) 8 SCC 417 and particularly paragraph 14 thereof which states that there could be situations where both the payer and payee could be at fault and where mistake is mutual then in that case such amounts could be recovered.”

In view of the said judgment, it can be said that it is not misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Admittedly, on complaint of one Manoj Kumar Jha, who has not been selected by the Establishment Committee and has filed W.P. (S) No. 2004 of 2013 contained in annexure-13 to the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, which was dismissed for default and the said action has been taken against the petitioner. Thus the action on the complaint of Manoj Kumar Jha is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the writ petition filed by one Manoj Kumar Jha has been dismissed by the High Court,. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in “Sitaram Thakur” (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case the petitioner was terminated who was working on daily wage and the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that there is no requirement for the principle of natural justice. In this case petitioner’s case was considered by the Establishment Committee and petitioner has already worked on the promoted post for more than 11 years. and in that view of the matter, only it has not been done in this case. Para 64 of “Sitaram Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar and Others” reported in 1992 SCC Online Pat 347 is quoted here-in-below:

“64. There cannot be any doubt that in absence of stature or statutory rules, the State may formulate scheme and/or adopt policy decisions for regularization of its adhoc employees if they had continued for a number of years subject to the criteria laid down therefor and reservation policy of the State.”

13. In that view of the matter in the present case only two letters have been brought on record. The judgment reli