- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the second time bound promotion, which was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 18th December, 1996 w.e.f. 12th March, 1994 has been withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 30th July, 2005, which is at Annexure-8 to the memo of the petition, and thereby, an amount of Rs. 32,324/- has been deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner, who is a retired employee of the year, 2003, is challenging the decision of the respondents dated 30th July, 2005 of withdrawal of the second time bound promotion, which was given in the year, 1996 (w.e.f. 12th March, 1994) and is also challenging the action of deduction of sizeable amount of Rs. 32,324/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Moharir in a Land Record and Measurement Department, Bihar, Patna. Thereafter, he was given a pay scale of Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1st April, 1981. It was his first time bound promotion. Thereafter, looking to the service records of the present petitioner, second time bound promotion was also given by the Director, Land Record and Measurement Department, Bihar, Patna vide letter no. 8980 dated 18th December, 1996 w.e.f. 12th March, 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner served approximatively for one more decade sincerely, diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the respondents and thereafter, the petitioner reached at the age of superannuation and retired on 31st May, 2003. Thereafter, a period of more than twelve months has lapsed and unilaterally, arbitrarily, without giving any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the respondents have withdrawn second time bound promotion, which was given to the petitioner in the year 1996, vide letter dated 30th July, 2005 (Annexure-8 to the memo of the petition). This order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) It is also vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents cannot decide unilaterally that the second time bound promotion, which was given to the petitioner in the year 1996, was incorrect. Looking to the impugned order passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, it appears that this officer has not applied his mind, at all, and he has relied upon some decisions taken by another officer and that another officer is a Secretary Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi and some letters are also issued by Secretary Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Thus, the Joint Secretary, who has passed the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005 has fully relied upon a decision taken by somebody else and a copy of the decisions taken by that somebody else (probably a Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi) has not been supplied to the petitioner and, thus, the basis, on which a direction is given to the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, is not known to the petitioner. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioner by that somebody else (Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi) or, at least, by the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, before withdrawal of the second time bound promotion, which was given to the petitioner in the year 1996, the petitioner would have pointed out that there was not even a slightest illegality in granting second time bound promotion to the petitioner. The respondents cannot arrive at an unilateral decision on their own that second time bound promotion was wrongly given to the petitioner. Thus, the action of the respondents, therefore, tantamounts to an arbitrary action. Whenever there is an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents and the benefits granted approximately one decade earlier, has been withdrawn and that too after two years of retirement of the petitioner, is certainly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;