IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7077 of 2005 DEO RAJ PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BHONU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SALEMPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT – JEHANABAD. ….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, STATISTICS EVALUATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATISTICS, GAYA. 4. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICER, GAYA. ………….. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : - Mr. Anisur Rehman, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Binit Kumar, AC to GA9. ----------- 05/ 13.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of order dated 9.2.2002 issued by the Director, Statistics Evaluation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No. 2), whereby promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Compiler vide order dated 18.4..1995 with effect from 1961 has been cancelled and the monetary benefits received in lieu of such promotion has been directed to be recovered. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 16.6.2000 issued by the District Planning Officer, Gaya (Respondent No. 5), whereby a sum of Rs. 2565/- has been directed to be recovered as the price for the material which is alleged to have been illegally kept by the petitioner 2 and not returned to the department. Petitioner was initially appointed in the year, 1961 vide Memo No. 3421 dated 12.6.1961. He was confirmed as Routine Clerk with effect from 10.6.1962 vide order dated 2.5.1977. His services were transferred to the Directorate of Statistics Evaluation Bihar, Patna in the year, 1975, but for 34 years not a single promotion, even the time bound promotion was given to him, on this plea that he has not passed departmental examination. However, vide Memo No. 869 dated 18.4.2005 he was posted as Junior field Investigator in a different cadre, with effect from 14.6.1961. The petitioner, subsequently, in the year, 1997 was promoted to the post of Complier. He retired from his service on 30.4.1998. Till the date of petitioner’s retirement, the order dated 18.4.1995, posting of petitioner in different cadre with effect from 1961, as well as order of 1997, promoting him to the post of Complier, were not questioned. Subsequently vide order dated 9.2.2002 the order dated 18.4.1995, as well as promotional order dated 1997 were cancelled and a direction was 3 issued for recovery of amount received as salary of the promotional post. This order dated 9.2.2002 is under challenge in this writ application. Counsel for the petitioner submits that not a single promotion was allowed to the petitioner during entire service career, even time bound promotion was snot allowed on the pretext of departmental examination, as he was holding the post of Routine Clerk. In order to remove stagnation in the year, 1995, he was posted in a different cadre with retrospective effect of 1961, so that he can be allowed promotion to the next higher post of Complier. Both these orders have been cancelled after his retirement, even without issuing any notice to show cause. Impugned orders have been passed completely in violation of rule of natural justice, as such patently illegal. Respondents have passed another illegal order dated 16.6.2000, directing to recover throughout his service career he was not allowed to a single promotion, even time bound promotion was not given to him on account that for the post of Routine Clerk, passing of departmental examination is essential. An 4 order was passed in the year, 1995 whereby he was appointed to a different cadre. The change in cadre by this order with effect from 1961 he became entitled for promotion to the next post of Compiler and that was given to him. Such promotion in change of cadre had been cancelled after his retirement, even without issuing any notice to show cause. The impugned order, as such, has been passed completely in violation of rule of natural justice; it is patently an illegal order. Regarding order dated 16.6.2000, whereby a recovery of amount of Rs.2565/-, on account of loss of some articles during his posting at Purnea. Regarding this loss no charges were framed, no show cause issued, suddenly order of recovery has been issued, against all settled norms and procedure. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents only reason for passing impugned order dated 9.2.2002 is the objection raised by the Finance Department in case of one Brahmdeo Prasad. Brahmdeo Prasad had been posted in a different cadre like petitioner with retrospective effect and allowed promotion to the next post. He was simultaneously 5 given benefits of the time bound promotion. Considering the fact that Brahmadeo Prasad was given regular promotion as well as time bound promotion, objection was raised by the Finance Department and promotion to the post of Compiler was recalled. So far petitioner’s case is concerned, his case is not identical to the case of Brahmdeo Prasad, was allowed both benefits i.e. promotion as well as time bound promotion. Only in case both promotions would have been allowed to the petitioner and any objection raised by the Finance Department, Respondent No. 2 could have any reason for passing the impugned order. In anticipation of objection by the Finance Department, no such order could not have passed by the Respondent No. 2, without issuing any show cause notice. The impugned order dated 9.2.2002 is bad on two counts; (i) firstly it has been passed in violation of rule of natural justice and (ii) secondly without there being specific reason for passing order, in anticipation of objection of Finance Department 6 this order was passed. Accordingly, order dated 9.2.2002 as well as 16.6.2000 are quashed. In case any recovery has been made by the Respondents, that must be refunded to the petitioner. Respondents are directed to fix petitioner’s pension in the pay scale of Compiler as he was retired from that post. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)