LexJAGDISH PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 377 : 2024 INSC 591 Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 2013) 08 August 2024 [Sandeep Mehta* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The Accountant General, State of Bihar, raised an objection dated 28.01.2003, regarding the promotion accorded to the appellant on 10.03.1991 with a further remark that the promotion given to the appellant on 10.03.1991 would become ineffective after 01.01.1996 in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.02.1999 and, thus, the pay scale of the appellant would have to be revised and reduced to match that of the lower post, i.e., the Marketing Officer from the post of Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer (ADSO). Headnotes† Service Law – Objection to promotion – Reduction of pay scale – Recovery of the amount paid in excess beyond his entitlement – The High Court held that the revision and consequent reduction in pay fixation of the appellant was done in accordance with the paragraph 11 of the Government Resolution dated 08.02.1999 as per which, the appellant was not entitled to the higher pay scale which had wrongly been accorded to him – Correctness: Held: The fact regarding the appellant having been accorded time bound promotion from the post of Marketing Officer in Junior Selection Grade to Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum- Assistant District Supply Officer (ADSO) as per his entitlement on 10.03.991 is not in dispute – It is not the case of the respondents that the said promotion suffered from any irregularity or was given against the rules and regulations – The Resolution dated 19.01.1991 indicates that the next promotional channel from the post of the Lower Senior Grade (Marketing Officer) was to the post of Upper Senior Grade (Upper Marketing Officer) – The appellant having been duly promoted to the post of Upper Senior Grade (Upper * Author 378 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Marketing Officer) w.e.f. 10.03.1991 was entitled to and was rightly given the pay scale of the promotional post – Pursuant to the 5th Pay Commission being applied, the Government of Bihar issued a Resolution dated 08.02.1999, whereby the pay scale applicable to the post of Upper Senior Grade (Upper Marketing Officer) was revised from Rs. 2000-3800 to Rs. 6500-10500 – The paragraph 11 of the said Government Resolution specifically protects the promotions granted to the employees prior to 31.12.1995 – Apparently the appellant could not have been put to a disadvantage and his pay scale could not have been reduced prospectively by virtue of the said Resolution – The order whereby it was communicated to the appellant that it was decided to recover a sum of Rs. 63,765/- paid in excess due to mistake in fixation of pay, also indicates that a departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant which had led to the impugned action – No departmental action could have been initiated by the State against the appellant after eight years following his superannuation because the employer employee relationship had come to an end after the appellant’s superannuation – The order directing reduction in pay scale and recovery from the appellant was manifestly not preceded by any show cause notice and was thus, passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice – The State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap – The Government Resolution dated 08.02.1999 to be specific, is amenable to the interpretation that it protects the status and pay of those employees who had received their time bound promotions prior to 31.12.1995 – The said Resolution was misinterpreted and misapplied to the detriment of the appellant – Thus, the impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26] Case Law Cited Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2008] 17 SCR 917 : (2009) 3 SCC 475; ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2011] 7 SCR 66 : (2011) 7 SCC 493; State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [2014] 13 SCR 1343 : (2015) 4 SCC 334 – relied on. Thomas Daniel v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.