IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Sinha S/o Late Mehila Singh – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 365 of 2020, I.A. No. 6748 of 2021
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Service Law – Post of Correspondence Clerk - Basic scale – Whether the passing of departmental examination before grant of benefit of upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme is necessary or not – Held, Writ petitioner has granted benefit of upgradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme by virtue of resolution dated and admittedly, he has not passed departmental accounts examination which is required to be passed - It appears that State has also failed to discharge his duty in not bringing the aforesaid judgment of Full Bench to notice of learned Single Judge and perhaps that is reason, learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate aforesaid fact - Court, on basis of resolution no. dated, is of view as already referred that there was no occasion for State to ask an explanation for making recovery of excess payment made under time bound promotion scheme, since same has already been rescinded by virtue of resolution dated - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1606 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the decision was taken in Memo No. 666 dated 22.3.2010 issued under the signature of the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh, by which, the decision taken, was communicated of recall of benefits of 1st Time Bound Promotion/1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to the writ petitioner with effect from 03.09.1983 and 09.08.1999 on the ground that the writ petitioner has not passed the departmental accounts examination.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:
After creation of Jharkhand, the State of Jharkhand introduced the scheme of Assured Progression Scheme vide notification dated 14.08.2002 in terms thereof, if an incumbent not promoted within the period of 12 years, would be granted one higher scale of pay and another upon 24 years, if he has not been promoted.
In pursuance to the notification dated 14.08.2002, a meeting of the Circle Establishment-cum-Screening Committee was held on 18.09.2003 and thereafter, in pursuance to the decision taken in the said meeting, the writ petitioner was granted benefit of 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 09.08.1989 vide office order contained in Memo No. 2392 dated 12.11.2003.
In pursuance to the said decision, the pay scale of the writ petitioner was revised vide office order contained in Memo No. 2750 dated 27.12.2003. Another meeting of the Circle Establishment-cum-Screening Committee was held on 13.08.2005 and there was some rectification in the decision communicated vide office order contained in Memo No. 2392 dated 12.11.2003 with regard to pay scale and the same was circulated vide office order contained in Memo No. 972 dated 19.08.2005.
As per Rule 157(3)(G) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, departmental examination has to be held twice a year on the 2nd Monday of March and September every year or on such other fixed by the Board but it is not being conducted twice in a year, rather it is not even being conducted every year. However, as and when the departmental examination was conducted, the petitioner appeared and he had cleared 1st (final) and 2nd paper (preliminary) on 29.10.1990.
It is the further c
Anand Buttons Ltd. vs. State of Haryana
Basawaraj and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer
Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab and Others
Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jagjit Singh
Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab
K.K. Bhalla vs. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581
Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar
Mohammad Shamsuddin and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others
Ritesh Tewari and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
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....
Eligibility for benefits under the ACP/MACP Scheme is conditional upon passing relevant departmental examinations, which is mandatory for promotion.
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.