IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6285 of 2010 MANORAMA SINHA, W/O LATE SHASHI SHEKHAR PRASAD SINHA, R/O VILLAGE-NAYA TOLA, BHIKANPUR, P.S.-ISHAK CHAK, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KENDRIYA NIRUPAN SANGATHAN, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIRUPAN DIVISION NO.2 (HEAD QUARTER), RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.2, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE TECHNICAL ADVISOR OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION NO.2, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BHAGALPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 03.01.2011 From paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the respondents, it appears that there is no dispute that the deceased husband of the petitioner was working as Laboratory Assistant in the Works Charge Establishment under the Public Works Department, Government of Bihar since 16.06.1962. Thereafter, he was appointed on regular basis as Laboratory Assistant with effect from 01.06.1978 in the pay scale of Rs.220-315. He was given regular promotion in the next higher grade on the post of Research Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.335-555 with effect from 11.10.1980. Thereafter, after introduction of 4th Pay 2 Revision, the pay of the deceased husband of the petitioner was revised in the pay scale of Rs.785-1210 with effect from 01.04.1981 and in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 in terms of the 5th Pay Revision with effect from 01.03.1989. From the counter affidavit, it appears that since the deceased husband of the petitioner was granted regular promotion in the scale his first time bound promotion was cancelled as he was not entitled to the same. Subsequently, the second time bound promotion was also granted to him by mistake which has also been cancelled giving rise to this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if deceased husband of the petitioner was granted regular promotions in the different scales and corresponding revised scales, he was also entitled to monetary benefits of the same. However, by cancelling the time bound promotions granted to him the respondents have also made recovery from the pensionary benefits of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed 3 representation before the Principal Secretary of the Road Construction Department on 13.3.2009, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-8. He submits that while cancelling the time bound promotions granted to the deceased husband of the petitioner the respondents ought to have examined as to whether in terms of the regular promotions to him in different pay scales he was entitled to monetary benefits of the same and in that case the respondents should not have made recovery as in any case he was entitled to the same on account of regular promotions in the scales. Mr.Verma appearing for the respondents submits that this matter can be examined by the Department in the light of her representation, as contained in Annexure- 8, and can be ascertained whether the deceased was otherwise also entitled for the monetary benefits in view of his regular promotions in the scales. If that is established, definitely the petitioner will be entitled to get the monetary benefits or refund of the recoveries made from pensionary benefits to the extent she is found 4 admissible to it. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court feels it appropriate that the Principal Secretary of the Department examines the matter or gets the matter examined by any responsible officers of his Department and finds out as to whether the petitioner has been unnecessarily put to any monetary loss on account of cancellation of the time bound promotions to her husband inspite of being entitled to the same on account of regular promotions in the scales. It is expected that the consideration shall be made and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law within two months from the date of fling of fresh representation by the petitioner along with a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)