CHATURBHUJ PRASAD SINHA Vs. NORTH BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the order dated 14-7-1986 as contained in Memo No. 114 issued by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application and the order dated 31-7-1985, passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annuxers-5 to the writ application.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass, The petitioner at all material times bad been working as Senior Selection Grade Assistant under respondent No. 1. It is stated that the respondent No 1 authority is a statutory. The petitioner has asserted that he was initially appointed as a diarist and was eventually designated as clerk-cum-cashier in the Industries Department of the Government of Bihar, at Patna. It is further asserted that after the Constitution of Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, the services of the petitioner were transferred to and he was also given his due promotion by the said authority. The petitioner allegedly thereafter was transferred to Barsuni on 21-8-1975 upon constitution of respondent No. 1 and consequent upon its absoration by the said authority. The respondent No. 4 was absorbed in the respondent No. 1 authority on 2-2-1976. The petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Assistant on probation for six months in the scale of pay Rs. 348-570 and the same was extended twice. This fact appears from Annexure-6, 7, 8 and 8/1 to the writ application. It appears that the respondent No. 4 was absorbed as a lower Division Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 260:408 which appears from An- nexure-D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. The petitioner has further contended that by an order dated 2-1-1985, he was promoted in the post of Selection Grade by the Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 authority under the scale of pay of Rs. 850-1360 with retrospective effect from 1-3-1977 as would be evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. The respondent No. 4 on the other hand, was promoted in the post of Upper Division Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 348-570 to the writ application. On or about 4-12-1985 a gradation list was prepared (Annexure-2) wherefrom, it appears that the petitioner's name appears at Serial No. 1 whereas the name of respondent No. 4 appears at Serial No. 2.

(3.) From the aforementioned office order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application it is evident that prior to the same there had been a merger in the cadre of different grades of Assistants. In the said gradation list as against the name of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 4 the dates from which the merged scale of pay became effective, has been shown at 1-3-1977 and 1-7-1981 respectively. From a perusal of the aforementioned office order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, if further appears that the same was merely provisional in nature and all concerned were advised to submit their objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. However, by an order dated 14-7-1986, the respondent No. 4 was declared as senior and the order of promotion granted to the petitioner was directed to be cancelled. By the said order itself, the pay granted to the petitioner with retrospective effect and other consequential benefits given to him were directed to be refunded as a result whereof the petitioner was directed to pay back the amount which was allegedly paid to him in excess. The aforementioned order is being impugned in this writ application being Annexure-3 thereof. On 17-7-1986 the respondent No. 4 filed a representation as against the said order which was rejected by an order dated 23-7-1986 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. It may be mentioned here that the representation oi' the petitioner is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. Prom a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, it appears that the respondent No. 1 authority took a serious objection with regard to the language used by the petitioner and on that ground censored the petitioner and the same was further directed to be recorded in his service book. This order dated 31-7-1987 is also under challenge in this writ application.