Allowed¶27

Prakash Routh v. the State of Jharkhand

Assured Career Progression – recovery from retired employees

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2024WPC/6231/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACP recovery; First Financial Upgradation cancelled after superannuation; recovery barred from retired Class III/IV employees; natural justice — no pre-decisional hearing; Assured Career Progression Scheme; Moharrir; Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand; office order No. 09/Survey MACP-64/11-273/Survey dated 19.10.2012 quashed; W.P.(S) No. 7625 of 2012 followed; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 followed; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(S) No. 6231 of 2018; decided 11.09.2024; Ambuj Nath, J.; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned office order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure-2) quashed; writ application allowed; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶27

Prakash Routh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6231 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Prakash Routh, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Dukhi Routh, Resident of Bishunpur, P.O.- B. Polytechnic, P.S. & District Dhanbad.

¶4

Subash Kumar Chakraborty, aged about 67 years, Son of Late K.C. Chakarborty, Resident of Inderdeo Tower, Hirapur, Durgamandir, P.O, P.S. & District- Dhanbad.

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶10

... … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶13

-----For the Petitioners : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C.(Mines)-1 : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-1

06/11.09.2024

Heard the parties.

The petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of the office order No. 09/Survey MACP-64/11-273/Survey, Ranchi dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and wherein the benefit of First Financial Upgradation (1^st A.C.P.) granted to the petitioners was cancelled with further order for recovery of amount paid pursuant to grant of 1^st Financial Upgradation (1^st A.C.P.).

¶18

Petitioner no. 1 Prakash Routh joined his service on 01.11.1978 as Class IV post and retired from his service on 31.01.2010 from the post of Moharrir which is Class III post. Petitioner no. 2 Subash Kumar Chakraborty joined his service on 05.11.1979 as Class IV post and also retired from his service on 31.01.2011 from the post of Moharrir which

¶19

is Class III post. Both the petitioners were granted First and Second Financial Upgradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 12/24 years of regular and satisfactory service from the date of their appointment on the post held by them. Both the petitioners were granted First and Second A.C.P with effect from 09.08.1999 and their pay was fixed with higher scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- as on 01.11.2002. Petitioner no. 1 Prakash Routh was granted Second Financial Upgradation with effect from 01.11.2002 and petitioner no. 2 Subash Kumar Chakraborty was granted Second Financial Upgradation with effect from 05.11.2003 in the higher scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/- by Office order dated 21.01.2008 issued by the respondent no. 3 the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶20

It appears that the First A.C.P so granted to the petitioners was after the period of 12 years of service which was qualifying period for grant of First A.C.P., the petitioners were promoted on the post of Moharrir which is Class III post. 5. The order recalling the grant of First A.C.P. was passed after they have superannuated and order has also been passed for recovery of amount which has been paid in excess. 6. Reliance has been placed upon the decision passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7625 of 2012, wherein the Court has held that:

¶21

“6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure-2) is not tenable in the eyes of law. The petitioners have already received the monetary benefits of 1^st ACP vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition, after due consideration by the competent authority. As the petitioners are 3^rd grade employees and have already been superannuated, no order of recovery could have been passed after their retirement. The matter has been set at rest in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court that any order visiting civil

¶22

-2-

¶23

consequences cannot be passed without adhering the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) & Ors. etc., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has clearly laid a guideline which forbids the recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees after lapse of considerable time.

¶24

7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and judicial pronouncements, the order date 19.10.2012 (Annexure-2) is hereby quashed and set aside.”

¶25

As the petitioners had already received monetary benefits of First A.C.P. after due consideration by the competent authority and order recalling the grant of benefit of first ACP was passed after their superannuation without giving them a chance of hearing no order for recovery can be passed after their retirement.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure-2) to this writ application is quashed.

¶27

This writ application is allowed.

¶28

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

(AmbujNath, J.)

¶30

Rahul/-

¶31

-3-

Prakash Routh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Routh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajmani Devi. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department

Urmila Devi Vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Md Israil And Anr. Vs Road Construction

Rita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aruna Devi Vs Union of India through Regional Director Employees Provident Fund Organization