PARAS NATH SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 21-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 791 
PARAS NATH SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.2671 of 2009) 
APRIL 21, 2009 
8 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
,,, 
SERVICE LAW: 
Promotion - Provisional First Time Bound Promotion -
c 
Cancellation of after 10 years - Orders for recovery from 
salary of employee - Held: Employee being almost illiterate 
and belonging to Class IV, did not know implication of giving 
the undertaking-Amount not to be recovered, but the amount 
• 
already recovered not to be paid back to employee . 
D 
The appellant, who was promoted from a Class IV 
post, was granted provisional First Time Bound 
Promotion, but the same was cancelled after 10 years and 
the consequential amount received by him was directed 
to be recovered. The employee having failed before the 
E 
High Court filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD: The fact that the appellant was only a Class 
F 
IV employee and almost an illiterate person; he did not 
know the implications of giving the undertaking at the 
time of provisional First Time Bound Promotion. In the 
absence of any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to 
• " 
the appellant, and the amount being not so excessive, in 
particular, Rs.1,01,529.50 only, out of which certain G 
amount has already been recovered from the salary of the 
appellant, a lenient view should be taken and the amount 
already paid to the appellant shall not be recovered. 
791 
H 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A However, the amount already recovered, shall not be paid 
back to the appellant [Para 6 and 7] [793-D··F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2671 of 2009. 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.02.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No. 692 of 2006. 
M.P. Jha, Raroekbal Roy and Harshvardhan Jha for the 
Appellant(s). 
c 
Gopal Singh and Manish Kumar for the Respondent(s). 
The. Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
TARUN CHATIERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. The appellant was appointed on the post of Orderly in 
the Department of Planning and Development in the State of 
Bihar and he has since retired. In 1972, more precisely on 29th 
of August, 1972, the appellant was promoted to the post of 
E 
Machine Boy and subsequent to such promotion, he was made 
Routine Clerk on 13th of June, 1974 and was allowed to function 
as such on the said post. On 15th of April, 1995, the appellant 
was given provisional First Time Bound Promotion with effect 
from 13th of June, 1984. After about 10 years, more precisely 
on 19th of September, 2005, the First Time Bound Promotion 
F granted to the appellant was cancelled. In view of such 
cancellation of promotion, direction was issued by the State/ 
Respondent to recover Rs. 1,01,529.50 from the salary of the 
appellant at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. 
G 
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order directing recovery, the 
appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature 
at Patna contending that since the time bound promotion given 
to him was at the fag end of his employment and that the 
appellant, once having worked in the time bound promotional 
H post, recovery against him was not justified. The writ petition, 
.. 
" • 
PARAS NATH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
793 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.] 
~ 
. 
, 
however, was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court 
A 
and affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in a Letters 
Patent Appeal. 
4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this special 
leave petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence 
B 
of the learned counsel for the parties. 
A 
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
considering the fact that the State Authorities had allowed the 
appellant to work for about 10 years and paid the salary at the 
enhanced rate, in which the appellant had no role to play except c 
that he had given an undertaking to the Authorities that in the 
event, his First Time Bound Promotion was cancelled, in that 
case, he would be bound to refund· the same. 
6. Having considered the fact that the appellant was only 
D 
a Class IV employee in the State of Bihar and almost an 
illiterate person and did not know the implications of giving such 
undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and 
misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount 
being not so excessive, in particular Rs. 1,01,529.50, out of E 
which certain amount has already been recovered from the 
sal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.