IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6531 of 2002 Most. Savitri Devi, widow of Late Baleshwar Prasad, resident of village- Khedanpura, P.O.-Hussaini, P.S.-Keshariya, District-West Champaran, At present residing at Baswaria, Near Imli Chowk, Bettiha, District-East Champaran. ……………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing Director, P.S.-Bela, District-Muzaffarpur. 4. The Managing Director, North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, P.S.- Bela, District-Muzaffarpur. ……………………….. Respondents ----------- 5 21/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. As the original petitioner has died during pendency of this writ application an application has been filed for substituting him by his wife Most. Savitri Devi, details whereof has been given in paragraph 2 (i) of I.A. No. 1069 of 2009. For the reasons mentioned therein and especially after taking into account that the cause of action and right to sue for the wife of the petitioner still survives, this Court would direct for substitution of the original writ petitioner by his wife and to that extent I.A. No. 1069 of 2009 is allowed. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find that the impugned order by the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary of the Industries Department was admittedly passed after the original petitioner had retired from service on 31.10.2008 whereas the impugned order was passed on 15th December, 2001. That apart, as the impugned order passed by the Commissioner-Cum- 2 Secretary of the Industries Department necessarily entails civil and evil consequences by way of recovery from the petitioner on account of being given a time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981. The original petitioner was entitled to a show cause notice before passing of the impugned order. There is no dispute that no such show cause was issued to the original petitioner from the office of the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary prior to passing the impugned order. Normally, this Court having noticed that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, would have quashed the same and remit the matter back to the authority for reconsideration of the matter by way of fresh show cause notice and passing an order thereon after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. However, now when the original writ petitioner is dead such recourse cannot be adopted because the widow, substituted petitioner, does not know as to what had happened after issuance of order for promotion of her husband. Therefore, this Court in the peculiar facts of this case would not adopt such a recourse. Counsel for the State at this stage would however submit that since the widow is receiving the benefits of family pension and other retirement benefits she can definitely be subjected to an order of recovery. Counsel for the State, however, was not in a position to show as to whether the original petitioner had made any misrepresentation in getting such promotion. 3 Moreover the said order granting promotion to the petitioner in the time bound scale of pay by the Secretary, North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority dated 3.2.1995 had itself contained a clause that the same was purely provisional in nature and could be subjected to revision on account of any order passed by the controlling administrative department, but then nothing was done to this effect during active service period of the original writ petitioner. In such a situation, this Court would now not allow the authorities to give effect to the impugned order to the extent of making any recovery from the entitlement of the original petitioner which is now being paid to the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that the salary of the petitioner for the purpose of computation of retirement benefits would be strictly governed by the pay scale to which the original petitioner had been reduced on account of such order. It is again made clear that even after reduction of such scale of the original petitioners no recovery will be made from the substituted petitioner because there is nothing on the record to show that her husband had made any misrepresentation. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ application is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)