IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. ( S ) No. 714 of 2005
Tapeshwar Prasad Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others ...Respondents.
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar
For the respondents : Mr. R.Krishna
20. 07. 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondents.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is against order dated
29.5.2003
( Annexure 4/1) whereby the date of promotion granted to the
petitioner in the selection grade has been revised by computing 14 years of
continuous service from the date of his joining the post of Bill Clerk in 1973
and the earlier promotion given to him by computing the period of 14
years from the date of his initial appointment in 1970, has been cancelled.
Further grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the aforesaid
impugned order, recovery of sum of Rs. 515/- per month is being made
from the petitioner’s salary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the
petitioner was initially posted as Meter Reader in 1970. Subsequently, by
annexure 2 he was posted as Bill Clerk in the year 1973 and thereafter on
completion of 14 years of service, he was given selection grade pay scale
and subsequently in 1990 was granted promotion to the super selection
grade.
While it was so, by the impugned order, he has been
informed that the promotion granted to him in the Selection Grade by
computing 14 years from the year 1970 was incorrect and it should be
treated as granted from the year 1973 when he was posted as Bill Clerk
and upon such basis, recovery of the purported excess paid amount is
sought to be made from the petitioner’s salary. Learned counsel argues
that such action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and cannot be
allowed, since such action has been taken without giving him any prior
notice nor any opportunity of hearing. Further more, even if there was
2
any error in computing, no amount, on the plea of excess payments can be
unilaterally recovered after lapse of more than 20 years.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
explains that admittedly, the petitioner’s initial appointment was on the
post of Meter Reader which is a separate cadre from that of Bill Clerk. The
petitioner’s posting as Bill Clerk was a fresh appointment which the
petitioner had voluntarily accepted and therefore the petitioner’s
promotion on the higher pay scale has to be computed only with reference
to the date of his appointment in the cadre of the Bill Clerk.
Learned counsel submits that as it appears from the
pleadings, though no prior notice was given to the petitioner, but in any
case, the respondents cannot be prevented from making correction or
rectification of the error which had crept in inadvertently and the
petitioner cannot raise any grievance against such correction.
5. As it appears from the explanations offered by the
respondents, the cadre of Meter Operator is distinct and separate than that
of Bill clerk and the post of Bill Clerk is not a promotional post from post
of Meter Reader. The petitioner who had accepted his posting on the post
of Bill Clerk, has to abide by the Rules prescribed for in the matter of
computation of the period of length of service for grant of higher grades.
The respondents do have a right to correct errors in assessment as and
when such error is detected. However, before making any corrections of
purported errors, it is incumbent upon the respondents to give prior notice
to the employee whose interest is likely to be affected by the proposed
rectification and to give him an opportunity of being heard. This having
not been done, the impugned order has to be deemed as violative of the
principles of natural justice. Furthermore, having allowed the petitioner to
avail his salary at a particular scale for over 20 years, the respondents
cannot proceed to recover any amount from the petitioner on the plea of
excess payment.
6. In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this
application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order
dated 29.5.2003 ( Annexure 4/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents shall
not deduct any amount from the petitioner’s salary on the ground of
arrears of any excess paid amount and if any such deductions have already
3
been made, then the entire amounts shall forthwith be refunded to the
petitioner. The respondents shall however, be at liberty to rectify any error
regarding grant of selection grade to the petitioner, but only after giving
adequate opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.
With the above observations, this application is
disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the
respondents.
Ambastha/ (D.G.R. Patnaik,J)