PURSHOTTAM LAL DAS AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 10-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

PURSHOTT AM LAL DAS AND ORS. 
A 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 10, 2006 
[ARIJJTPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Service law 
Promotion-From Class Ill to post of clerk-On audit objection, 
reversion to original posts-Held: Reversion was correct-Class Ill employees C 
belonged to technical cadre and promotional post related to non-technical 
cadre, and there was no question of promotion to same class-Promotions 
were not in conformity either with statutory provision or reservation policy, 
and were granted despite a ban by State Government-They were granted 
without placing the cases before proper Committee and procedure of D 
advertisement was not adopted 
Promotion/appointment found void ab initio-Recovery of higher salary 
attached to promotional post-Held: Employees were not at fault-Recovery 
of the higher salary' on the ground of gross irregularity committed by those 
who granted the p.-omotion was not correct as the employees had worked on E 
the promotional posts. 
Appellants were employed in Class III in posts with respondent. They 
were promoted to the post of Clerk. Subsequently, on audit objection, 
respondent came to the view that promotions granted to appellants were illegal 
• 
and they were reverted to their original posts. Being aggrieved by the said 
order, they moved the High Court, but their challenge was rejected and recovery 
of the amounts paid to them on account of promotion was also ordered. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that (ii they were not at fault; they were appointed 
on the basis of the recommendations made by a Selection Committee [iii even 
if there was any procedural irregularity that could not affect their promotion 
and no action could be taken after lapse of time (iii( recovery of amount from 
them was uncalled for. 
51 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent contended that Iii even if appellants had worked in 
~ ' 
promotional post yet they were not entitled to higher salary attached to the 
promotional post, and therefore, its recovery from them was proper. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
'•
B 
HELD: I. The reasons which weighed with the respondent to hold that 
the promotion was illegal does not suffer form any infirmity. Class III 
employees could not have been promoted as they belong to the technical cadre 
and the promotional posts related to non-technical cadre. That apart the Class 
III employees were already holding Class III post and, therefore, there was no 
c 
question of promotion to the same class. So far as class IV employees are 
concerned, their promotion was also not considered in terms of statutory 
provision. The quota of promotion to Class III from Class IV is fixed and the 
procedure is provided for deciding the question of promotion. The promotions 
were granted without placing their cases before the Establishment Committee 
and the Committee which accorded approval was not properly constituted, and 
D the reservation policy was not followed and promotions were given without 
adopting the procedure relating to advertisement The High Court also noted 
that the appointments were made by the Civil Surgeon though a ban had been 
imposted by the State Government on appointments. Therefore, the order of 
reversion in each case cannot be faulted. [54-E, F, GJ 
E 2. So far as the recovery is concerned, in a normal course if the promotion/ 
appointment is void ab initio, a mere fact that the employee had worked in 
the concerned post for long cannot be a ground for not directing recovery. 
High Court itself noted that the appellants deserve sympathy as for no fault 
of theirs, recoveries were directed when admittedly they worked in the 
promotional posts. But relief was denied on the ground that those who granted 
F promotion had committed gross irregularities. While, therefore, not accepting 
the challenge to the orders of reversion on the peculiar circumstances noticed, 
it is directed that no recovery shall be made from the amounts already paid in 
respect of the promotional posts. However, no arrears or other financial 
benefits shall be granted in respect of the concerned period. 
G 
(54-H; 57-A, B, CJ 
Sahib Ram v. State of Hwyana, (1995) Supp. I SCC 18; Bihar State 
Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bijay Bhadur and Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 99 and 
--
State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Mangalore University Non-teaching 
Employees' Association and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 302, relied on. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC

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