Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 315 Patna dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure-1) passed by the Director, Employment and Training, Bihar, Patna, whereby the first time bound promotion in the scale of Rs. 850-1360/- and the second time bound promotion in the scale of 880-1510/-w.e.f. 1.1.1981 and 28.2.1989, were declared irregular as the admissible first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion should have been in the scale of Rs. 785-1210/-and Rs. 850-1360/- respectively. He has also prayed for quashing the order of the Principal. Industrial Training Institute, Hazaribagh as contained in Letter No. 552 Hazaribagh, dated 14.9.2001 (Annexure-3), directing the petitioner to deposit the excess amount of Rs. 64,379.30 (sixty four thousand three hundred seventy nine and paise thirty only) paid to him on account of the irregular fixation of salary.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was compelled to deposit the amount since it was ordered that if he did not deposit the amount his pension papers would not be forwarded by finalization to the competent authority. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in WP(S) No. 4590 of 2004, WP (S) No. 4628 of 2004. WP(S) No. 4689 of 2004 and WP(S) No. 6220 of 2004 had quashed such orders of recovery as they were passed after a long delay from the date of grant of the benefits. It is submitted that the first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion were given in the year 1981 and 1989. That the order for recovery of the said amount was passed in violation of the provisions contained Rule 43(B) of Jharkhand Pension Rules without issuance of any notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 12 SCC 580 and submitted that the facts as delineated in the writ petition are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and submitted that the action of the respondent is not tenable in law.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has resisted the claim and contended that the petitioner can file a representation alongwith the said decisions, before the concerned authority, who will pass necessary order, in accordance with law.;