IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6233 of 2003 RAN VIJOY KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.5947 of 2003 NANDU RAM & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8/ 08/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Accountant General and for the Bihar Legislative Assembly. In C.W.J.C. No.6233/03 petitioner No.1 is stated to have retired on 31.1.2001. The husband of petitioner No.2 is stated to have been deceased on 18.10.1997. While they were both in service they were promoted to the post of assistants from that of typists/ bill clerks/ routine clerks in the Bihar Legislative Assembly on 21.11.1988. They are aggrieved by the refusal of the Finance Department of the State of Bihar to allow them the scale of assistants as granted by the order of promotion contained in the impugned orders dated 9.3.2002 as communicated on 24.2.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the state authorities have found no fault in the 2 promotion which has not been recommended to be cancelled. The denial of the scale granted in 1988 is sought to be justified by an administrative direction of 19.9.1997 subsequent in point of time. It is next urged that after the superannuation of petitioner No.1 on 31.1.2001, the master-servant relationship stood severed taking the petitioner out of the administrative purview of the respondents. There are no allegations of the scale having been obtained by fraud etc. and matters which continued unhindered from 1988 till his superannuation in 2001, cannot be disturbed for what may have essentially been the fault of the respondents themselves. No orders could be passed against the husband of petitioner No.2 after his death and any such orders against a dead person is a nullity in the eye of law. Specific assertion has been made in paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition invoking Article-14 of the Constitution of India that others appointed similarly have not been visited with such consequences for reduction of pay-scale. The respondents in paragraph Nos.22 and 32 of the counter affidavit have not denied the allegation of discrimination. The petitioners were neither noticed nor heard before an order to their prejudice came to be 3 passed nearly 14 years later. The counter affidavit of the State of Bihar does not answer any of these issues raised on behalf of the petitioners. To interfere with a benefit granted in 1988 in the year-2002, sufficiently cogent and convincing grounds are required, more so, when petitioner No.1 superannuated from service and the husband of petitioner No.2 was no more alive to answer anything. This Court holds that orders of the present nature in absence of any allegations of fraud, misrepresentation etc. could not have been passed against petitioner No.1 after his superannuation after the master-servant relationship stood severed. Insofar as the husband of petitioner No.2 is concerned, an order against a dead person is a nullity in the eye of law. No circular of the year 1997 could be relevant for reducing a pay-scale granted in 1988. The absence of any reply to the charge of discrimination Article-14 of the Constitution of India also comes to the aid of the petitioners. The impugned orders dated 9.3.2002 and 24.2.2003 are accordingly set aside. Any deduction made from petitioner No.1 and 2 are directed to be 4 forthwith restituted within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In C.W.J.C. No.5947/03 the petitioners are stated to be still in service. The reasoning contained aforesaid is urged to apply with equal force to the present petitioners also. The orders being in violation of the principles of natural justice are, therefore, not sustainable against them also when nothing shall preclude the respondents from proceeding with regard to them afresh in accordance with law. The writ applications stand allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)