Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 01.06.2002 and further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 29.06.2002, issued by the respondents pertaining to recovery of the differential amount paid to the petitioner on the basis of the wrong date of promotion and the petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for grant of arrears of dues including the statutory interest.
(2.) The brief facts, as averred in the writ application, are that the petitioner initially joined the services on 10.03.1973 on the post of the Supervisor Grade III in Work Charged Establishment and in the year 1978, the petitioner was absorbed on the post of the Junior Engineer from the date of his initial appointment i.e. since 10.03.1973 as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition. After rendering considerable length of services, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2001 from the post of the Junior Engineer from the office of the Superintending Engineer, Hydrolic Circle, Ranchi. Since the petitioner was not extended with the benefit of the Time Bound Promotion, the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1826 of 2002, which was disposed of on 29.03.2002 with a direction to the respondents to determine the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any time Time Bound Promotion and also, as to why the retirement benefits have not been paid in favour of the petitioner and with a further direction to pay the admitted dues, including retiral benefits, to the petitioner, within a period of four months. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the respondent no. 6 has passed the order dated 01.06.2002, 29.06.2002 and 29.10.2002 vide Annexures-6, 7 and 8, which are under challenge in this writ application. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted that the action of the respondent no. 6 in issuing impugned orders vide Annexures-6, 7 and 8 of the writ application are without jurisdiction. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, since the petitioner has retired from the State of Jharkhand in the year 2001 and the State of Bihar is bereft of jurisdiction to pass order after retirement of the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar versus-Arvind Bijay Billung & Anr., 2002 1 JLJR 697. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order, so far as direction for recovery without issuance of show cause notice is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that Annexure-3 to the writ application clearly states that the petitioner was absorbed in the Government post from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 10.3.1973, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the Time Bound Promotion after completion of ten year i.e. of the year 1983. Since the Time Bound Promotion has been given to the petitioner from the year 1988, it should have been ante dated to 1983.;