KAMALA SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above, cannot be accepted. The first submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was rightly given the pay fixation benefit w.e.f. 21.3.1981 even though he came to be absorbed on the post of correspondence 6 clerk on 19.10.1981 in fact would lead to ridiculous position in law. The whole idea of the Government to bring the employees of work charge establishment by government decision dated 19.2.1981 was to absorb the persons having appropriate qualification on an equivalent vacant post available in the regular establishment. Therefore, a work sarkar like the petitioner could not have been absorbed against a higher post of Correspondence clerk or the Accounts clerk merely because the petitioner had qualification and had fulfilled the eligibility conditions of such higher post of the clerk. As a matter of fact for this very purpose the State Government’s decision dated 19.2.1981 itself envisaged constitution of duly well represented selection committee which had to go into the service records and to select the persons for the purposes of absorption on an equivalent post. Such policy infact did not envisage giving promotion to any one from the post of work sarkar in work charge establishment to the post of Correspondence/Accounts clerk in regular 7 establishment. Therefore, what the petitioner got on 19.10.1981 while being absorbed on the post of correspondence clerk in the regular establishment from the post of sarkar charge establishment was infact a fresh entry in service certain conditions envisaged in the government decision for counting of the past services for the purpose of payment of pension only. For any thing beyond that the petitioner will always be bound by the order by which he was given higher pay on 19.10.1981. From perusal of records this also becomes clear government decision

30.6.1990 infact came into existence after almost 9 years of the petitioner already regularized correspondence clerk. It has to be always kept in mind that under the government orders passed by different authorities at field level, it was only an officer in rank of Chief Engineers who were empowered to regularize the service of employees of charge establishment 8 therefore when different dates were given employees charge establishment while their being brought in the regular establishment, the government came out with a decision to fix their seniority by giving a deemed date and that date was only in terms of earlier government order dated 19.2.1981. Since government decision

19.2.1981 had fixed one month period for regularizing service on an equivalent post and therefore a deemed date of seniority category charge establishment brought in the regular service was fixed by the government decision dated 30.6.1990, which reads as follows:- (cid:222)fcgkj ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkxA i=kad%&4@LFkk la0 &1014@89&4252@iVuk] fnukad % 30-6-90 izs"kd % Jh vuUr izlkn flUgk] ljdkj ds voj lfpoA lsok esa] lHkh eq[; vfHk;ark] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] iVukA fo"k;%& ty lalk/ku foHkkx esa 21@8@75 ls iwoZ dk; ZHkkfjr LFkkukUrxZr fu; qDr deZpkfj; ksa dks fu/kkZfjr LFkkiukUrxZr fd;s x;s lek; kstu ds QyLo:i mudh ikjL;fjd ojh; rk fu/kkZj.k ds lEcU/k esaA 9 egk’k;] funs’kkuqlkj mi; qZDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa dguk gS fd ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds fuxZr i=kad 941 fnukad 19-2-81 ds vkyksd esa ftu dk; ZHkkfjr deZpkfj; ksa dks fu; fer LFkkiukUrxZr lek; kstu djus dk vkns” k fn;k x;k Fkk rn~laca/kh vkns'k dk vuqikyu fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds vanj lHkh eq[; vfHk;arkvksa }kjk ugha fd;k tk ldkA ftlds dkj.k ,sls deZpkfj; ksa dk ikjLifjd ojh; rk fu/kkZj.k dSls fd;k tk; ;g iz’u ljdkj ds fopkjk/khu Fkk] ftlij lE;d fopkjksijkUr ljdkj us fu.kZ; fy;k gSs fd oSls dk; ZHkkfjr deZpkfj; ksa ftUgs fu; fer LFkkiUrxZr lek; ksftr fd;k x;k gS mldh ikjLifjd ojh; rk dk fu/kkZj.k fnukad 21-3-81 ls bl ’krZ ds lkFk fn;k tkrk gSs fd blds QyLo:i fdlh Hkh deZpkjh dks fdlh rjg dk vkfFkZd ykHk ns; ugha gksxkA fo’oklHkktu g0@& {łvuUr izlkn flUgk(cid:192) ljdkj ds voj lfpo Kki la0 %& 4252 iVuk] fnukad 30-6-90 izfrfyfi % egkea=h] xaMd ;kstuk deZpkjh dY;k.k la?k fon~;kifr ekxZ dks mudh ekax la0 7 ds izlax esa lwpuk ,oa vko';d dkjokbZ gsrq izsf’kr A g0@& {łvuUr izlkn flUgk(cid:192) ljdkj ds voj lfpo(cid:222) From reading aforementioned government circular dated

30.6.1990 it is very clear that it relates only to fixation of inter se seniority and giving a deemed date on 21.3.1981 to all such employees who were regularized in government decision

19.2.1981 and that too with a clear 10 stipulation that no financial benefit of any nature whatsoever shall be given on account of such shifting of date of deemed seniority. Once this position becomes clear the steps taken by the Executive Engineer under whom the petitioner was posted regularised a correspondence clerk was itself illegal inasmuch as on 19.10.1981 the petitioner’s basic pay was fixed at Rs.590 in pay scale of Rs.580-10-620-15-770 EB-15-860 whereas he was not entitled either for the higher post of Correspondence Clerk or the higher pay scale or even grant of an increment by fixing his basic pay in terms of the circular of the State Government dated

19.2.1981. Even otherwise the petitioner having entered into service on the post of correspondence clerk only 19.10.1981 he could not have been given any higher amount than the basic pay of Rs.580 in the pay scale of Rs. 580-860. The Service book produced by the petitioner himself would however itself go to show that he was given basic pay of Rs.590 on 19.10.1981 which was impermissible on that day as 11 even subsequent government circular dated

30.6.1990 was not in existence in October

1981. The further submission of counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on a supplementary affidavit and document contained as annexure-3 will also be of no avail inasmuch as it would appear that on

22.9.1992 i.e. almost after 11 years of the petitioner entering in service in the regular establishment was shown to have been favoured with certain orders as with regard payment of financial entitlement. Since the reference has been made on the aforementioned order dated 22.9.1992 this Court would find it appropriate to quote it in extenso which reads as follows;- dk; kZy; vkns’k (cid:222) bl dk; kZy; ds i=kad 305 fnukad 26-4-91 esa vaf’kd la’kks/ku djrs gq, eq[; vfHk;Urk ty lalk/ku foHkkx fMgjh ds i=kad 4169 fnukad 25-9-90 ds vkyksd esa Jh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid Vadd ds osrueku 284 ls 372 esa ----- 284-00 izfrekg fnukad 21-3-81 dks osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkrk gS vkfFkZd ykHk 19-10-81 ls ns; gksxkA mDr osru fu/kkZj.k esa fdlh izdkj dh vlaxfr ik;s tkus ij vf/kd Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k Jh flag ls dkV yh tk, xh] ftlds fy, mudk dksbZ nkok ekU; ugha gksxkA iwoZ esa tks vf/kd jkf’k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS mldh dVkSrh rhu cjkcj fd’rksa esa dj yh tk; sxhA 12 dk; Zikyd vfHk;Urk i=kad 498 fnukad 22-9-92 {ks= ;U= ize. My nqxkZorh …{ks0‰ izfrfyfi …1‰ Jh deyk flag i=kpkj fyfid@Vadd …2‰ dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh lklkjke …3‰ osru foi= fyfid {ks= ;a= ize. My nqxkZokrh dks funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd iwoZ esa vf/kd Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k dk fooj.kh rS;kj dj rhu cjkcj fd’rksa esa dVkSrh dj yh tk; sA g0@& dk; Zikyd vfHk;Urk {ks= ;U= ize. My nqxkZorh …jksgrkl‰(cid:222) If contents aforementioned order has to be understood in the context of service history of petitioner it is found that his pay fixation was being sought to be in scale of Rs.284-372 as on 22.9.1992 w.e.f.

21.3.1981 whereas his service book would go to show that at the time of entry of the petitioner in service in regular establishment on 19.10.1981 itself he had got the pay scale of Rs.580-860 with one increment w.e.f. 21.3.1981 while all that he was entitled was his own pay for an equivalent post of work sarkar in the pay scale of Rs. 220-315 (unrevised) and Rs. 535-765 (revised) as is clear from the impugned order:- 13 eq[; vfHk;ark] ;ka dk dk; kZy; ty lalk/ku foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk i=kad&1@dk LFkk0&03&014@07 iVuk] fnukad vkns’k v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark …;kaf=d] flapkbZ ;kaf=d] vapy ehBkiqj] iVuk dk i=kad &940 fnukad 24-4-07 ,oa dk; kZikyd vfHk;ark] {ks= ,oa izeaMy] Hkkxyiqj ds i=kad 420 fnukad 29-3-07 ds }kjk Hkh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid dks iznRr izFke dkyc) izksUufr dh frfFk ,oa ns; rk ds laca/k esa leqfpr vkns’k dh ekax fd;k x;k gS ds vkyksd esa Jh flag ds lsok iqfLrdk dks leh{kk fd;k x;kA leh{kk esa ik;k x;k fd Jh deyk flag dks izFke fu; qfDr dk; ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dk; Zn’kZd ds in ij fnukad 29-8-73 dks dh x;hA Jh flag dk; Zn’kZd …dk; ZHkkfjr‰ dks foHkkxh; i=kad 941 fnukad 19-2-81 ds dze esa eq[; vfHk;ark] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] fMgjh ds i=kad 2171 fnukad 12-12-81 }kjk fu; fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij osrueku 284&372@& iqufjf{kr osrueku 500&660@& … esa lek; ksftr fd;k x;kA rFkk osru ds i’pkr~ os fnukad 19-10-81 dks fucaf/kr LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij ;ksxnku fn; sA foHkkxh; i=kad 4252 fnukad 30-6-90 esa fufgr izko/kkukuqlkj 1-3-81 ds vk/kkj ij ojh; rk dk ykHk fn;k x;k u fd okf"kZd ykHk] ijUrq Jh flag dks fnukad 21-3-81 ls tks osrueku 284&372@ dk vkfFkZd ykHk ns fn;k x;k gSA tcfd 21-3-81 dks Jh flag dk; ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dk;Z n’kZd ds in ij osrueku 220&315 iqujhf{kr osrueku 535&765@‰ esa dk; Zjr FksA vr,o fnukad 21-3-81 ls fnukad 18-10-81 rd fu; fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid dk osrueku 264&372@& dk fn;k x;k ykHk lqlaxr ugha gS vkSj vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf’k olwyuh; gSA vr% vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid dks fnukad 21-3-81 ls fnukad 18-10-81 rd fu; fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid dk osrueku 284&372@& dk fn;k x;k ykHk lqlaxr ugha gS vkSj vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf’k olwyuh; gSA vr% vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid dks fnukad 21-3-81 dh txg fu; fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij ;ksxnku dh frfFk 19-10-81 dks ,dhd‘r osrueku 284&372@& …iqujhf{kr osrueku 590&860@&‰ esa osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk; rFkk vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf’k dks olwyh Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid ls dj yh tk;A 14 …2‰ Jh deyk flag] dh izFke fu; qfDr dk; ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dk; Zn’kZd ds in ij fnukad 29-8-73 dks dh x;hA Jh flag] dk; ZHkkfjr dk; Zn’kZd dks fnukad 19-10-81 ls fu; fer LFkkiuk esa i=kpkj fyfid ds in ij lek; ksftr fd;k x;kA Li’V gS fd nksuks gh LFkkiuk ,oa in fHkUu FksA foRr foHkkx ds i=kad 920 fnukad 6-3-90 esa Li"V mYys[k gS fd ,d gh lEoxZ ds in ij yxkrkj 10 o"kZ@ 25 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh djus okys dehZ dks ge izFke@f}rh; dkyc)@izksUufr vuqekU; gSA fnukad 27-8-83 dks Jh flag] i=kpkj fyfid ,d gh laoxZ o in ij yxkrkj nl o"kkZs dh lsok iwjh ugha djrs gSA vr% foRr foHkkx ds i=kad 920 fnukad 6-3-90 ds vkyksd esa Jh flag dks fnukad 27-8-83 ls i=kpkj fyfid ds lanHkZ esa nh x;h izFke dkyc) izksUufr dks jn~n fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd iznRr izFke dkyc) izksUufr ds QyLo:i vf/kd Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf’k dh olwyhs] i=kpkj fyfid ls dj yh tk;A g0@& eq[; vfHk;ark …;kaf=d‰ Kkikad 2787 iVuk] fnukad 25-7-2007 izfrfyfi Jh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid {ks= ;a= izeaMy] Hkkxyiqj@ dk; Zikyd vfHk;ark] ;ka] {ks= ;a= izeaMy] eqt¶Qjiqj dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA dk; Zikyd vfHk;ark lka …Hkkxyiqj dks funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkns’k ds vkyksd esa lqlaxr fu; eksa ds rgr Jh flag i=kpkj fyfid dk osru fu/kkZj.k dj vf/kd Hkqxrku dks ugha lk{; dks olwyh djuk lqfuf’pr fd;k tk; rFkk mldh izfof"V lsok iqfLrdk esa dh tk;A d‘r dkjokbZ ls voxr djk;k tk;A g0@& 25-7-07 eq[; vfHk;ark …;kaf=d‰ i=kad 931 @ Hkkxyiqj] fnukad 2-8-07 izfrfyfi Jh deyk flag] i=kpkj fyfid] {ks= izeaMy] Hkkxyiqj dks lwpukFkZ izsf’krA g0@& 31-7-07 dk; Zikyd vfHk;ark {ks=h; ize. My] HkkxyiqjA Thus it is absolutely clear that 15 authorities after verifying the service records of the petitioner were satisfied that the petitioner was illegally paid financial benefit also for the period

21.3.1981 to 19.10.1981 which was sought to be recovered in view of the impugned order. In view of the above noted fact, this Court would find no anomaly or error in this part of the decision inasmuch as Circular of the State Government dated

30.6.1990 ultimately made it clear that no financial benefit was to be extended in such cases. Added to it, there is a settled principle service jurisprudence that a person when appointed will always be entitled to be a pay scale and salary only from the date of appointment i.e. 19.10.1981. There being no other condition imposed in the earlier order the petitioner could not have been given any benefit of pay fixation prior to

19.10.1981 and any amount drawn in excess beyond entitlement definitely recoverable as held in the judgment of full bench of this Court in the case of 16 Ram Binod Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in 2007(3)BBCJ

The aspect relates recovery of additional amounts drawn by the petitioner by way of time bound promotion. The petitioner as noted above came in the cadre of correspondence clerk on 19.10.1981 and as such he could not have been given time bound promotion by taking into account his length of service in work charge establishment inasmuch as there was a conscious decision on the date such time bound promotion was given to him under the order of authority granting time bound promotion to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-1 dated 9.11.1987 from its bare it would be found that the Superintendent Engineer who had passed an order of granting time bound promotion had not taken into account the spirit of resolution of Finance Department No. 10770 dated 30.12.81 or the circular of Finance Department as contained in Letter no.4245 dated 16.7.1985 inasmuch as none of the aforementioned two circulars in fact, 17 envisage counting services rendered in the work charge establishment for being considered for time bound promotion in a different cadre. Obviously, on the date such time bound promotion was given to the petitioner initially w.e.f.

1.4.1985 and later on regularized w.e.f.

27.8.1983, he had not completed a period of ten years on the post of Correspondence Clerk and thus was ineligible for such time bound promotion. Even otherwise once the petitioner had got the higher post and pay of Correspondence Clerk on 12.10.1981 by way of upgradation of his pay scale of the post of work sarkar held by him w.e.f.

20.8.1973, he was not entitled for being granted time bound promotion w.e.f.

27.8.1983 and as such the claim of the petitioner for retaining his time bound promotion must be and is hereby rejected. There is infact no government decision to show that the petitioner was entitled for counting his services of sarkar charge establishment by virtue of his being appointed as work sarkar on 27.8.1973. 18 That decision taken by the Superintendent Engineer recommendation of fourth pay revision committee as notified by the Finance Department resolution

30.12.1981, the consequential order in favour of the petitioner could not have been allowed to stand once the same had come to the notice of the competent authority. The concept of time bound promotion was primarily to remove the deprivation of financial benefit on account of stagnation on a particular post in a particular cadre and thus was not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as admittedly, the petitioner had entered in new cadre by way of absorption/ appointment by way of internal recruitment, w.e.f.

19.10.1981 and therefore his time bound promotion in terms of the government resolution dated 30.12.1981, could have matured only w.e.f. 19.10.1991 and not earlier. Counsel petitioner, however, also strenuously relied to defend 19 the order of time bound promotion (Annexure-1) on the strength of a government decision dated 27.3.1987. The aforementioned government decision in fact, refers to an earlier government decision dated 27.2.1984 in which the government had taken a conscious decision in keeping with the resolution of the State Government dated 30.12.1981 that the period of services rendered in the work charge establishment will not be taken into account for the purpose of counting the period of time bound promotion. Thereafter, government reconsidered its earlier decision dated

27.3.1987 and it had taken a decision that even for the purposes of selection grade or at the time of time bound promotion the service rendered in the work charge establishment could be counted provided there was no super cession of any regular employee. In that view of the matter as well the order dated 27.3.1987 could be of little avail for the petitioner. It was also submitted that another rider in the time bound promotion given in 20 terms of the aforementioned revised decision could not adversely affect any financial benefit earned by the petitioner prior to the date of order i.e. 27.3.1987. In order to appreciate this part of the aspect paragraph 2 and 3(a) and (b) being the relevant part of the aforementioned circular is quoted hereinbelow; (cid:222)2- foRr foHkkx ds Kki la[;k 3@ih0 vkj0 lh0 45&83&1560 fnukad 27-2-84 ds }kjk ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd ljdkjh lsod dk; ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa dh xbZ lsok dkyc) izksUufr ds fy, ifjxf.kr ugh dh tk; xhA 3 …,‰ ,sls dk; ZHkkfjr deZpkjh ftudh or Zeku vuqns’kksa ds v/khu isa’ku ,oa miknku vuqekU; gksrk gS muds }kjk dk; ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa fcrk;h xbZ iwjh lsokof/k dks ’kkfey djrs gq, isa’ku ,oa miknku ds fy, DokfyQkbZx ihjha; Ma dh x.kuk dh tk; xh o’k(cid:217)ksZ ,slk djrs le; dk; ZHkkfjr lsok ls fdruh vof/k isa’ku ;ksX; lsok,¡ tksM+h tk; sxh mruh vof/k esa va’knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa izn(cid:217)k ljdkjh va’knku vxj dksbZ gks dh jkf’k ljdkj dks ykSVk nsuh gksxh rFkk jkT; dsk"k esa tek dj nsuh gksxhA 3 …ch‰ fu; fer LFkkiuk esa vkus ds i’pkr dk; ZHkkfjr lsokof/k dks tksM+rs gq, lEcfU/kr deZpkfj; ksa dks izoj dksfV ,oa dkyc) izksUufr dh lqfo/kk miyC/k djk;h tk; c’k(cid:217)ksZ fd mlls fdlh Hkh fu; fer deZpkjh dh ojh; rk dk vodze.k ugh gksrk gks ojh; izoj dksfV uk dkyc) izksUufr ds lEcU/k esa bl vkns’k ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ds iwoZ dk dksbZ Hkh cdk;k vuqekU; ugha gksxkA bl izlax esa iwoZ esa fuxZr lHkh vkns’k ,oa vuqns’k bl va’k rd la’kksf/kr le>s tk; sxsA(cid:223) In the case of the petitioner as per Annexure-1 financial benefit however was given w.e.f. 27.10.1983 and thus if 21 the government circular dated 27.3.1987 was to be made applicable the same could not have even otherwise give the benefit to the petitioner at least for period

27.8.1983 to 27.3.1987. Normally in other condition, if the petitioner’s time bound promotion was in terms of aforesaid government decision, this could have been easily rectified by substituting the date of 27.10.83 to 27.3.1987 but there is another unsurmountable difficulty for the petitioner inasmuch as the government subsequently had again reconsidered the whole thing and had taken conscious decision on 6.3.1990 in which it was clarified that time bound promotion could only be given if a person had completed 10 years of service in cadre in which he had not been given any promotion earlier. Such being the stringent provisions of time bound promotion, it would therefore leave the petitioner with no other option but to forego his illegal time bound promotion inasmuch as the State Government in the Finance Department having given anxious consideration for all its employees had 22 taken following uniform decision in its circular dated 6.3.1990:- ^^Dkyc} izksUufr nsus ds laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k [fcgkj ljdkj foRr foHkkx] i= la[;k 3@ih0,0vkj0&04&8&89&920 fo0 …2‰ fnukad 6-3-1990 dh izfrfyfi] fo"k;& ljdkjh lsodksa dks dkyc} izksUufr nsus ds laca/k esaA mi; qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa funs’kkuqlkj v|ksgLrk{kjh dks dguk gS fd foRr foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k 10770] fnukad 30-12-1981 dh dafMdk AA esa jkT; ds ljdkjh lsodksa dks 10 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh gksus rd ;fn dksbZ izksUufr ugha feyh gks rks nl o"kZ ds vUr esa ,d dkyc} ikasUufr rFkk 25 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh gksus rd ;fn nwljh izksUufr ugha feyk gS rks iPphl o"kZ dh lsok iwjh gksus ij nqljh dkyc} izksUufr nsus ds izko/kku fd;k x;k gSA O;fDr fo’ks"k ljdkjh lsok esa vkus ij ,d laoxZ ;k ,d in ij dqN le; rd dk; Zjr jgus ds i’pkr nwljs lEoxZ esa ;k nqljs in ij fu; qDr gks tkrs gSA muds ekeys esa dkyc} izksUufr ds fufer nl o"kZ ;k iPphl o"kZ dh lsok dh x.kuk ljdkjh lsok esa izFke fu; qfDr dh frfFk -------- fcgkj ljdkj ds fopkjk/khu FkkA bl lEcU/k esa iw.kZ fopkjksijkUr jkT; ljdkj }kjk fuEu fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA …1‰ fdlh ljdkjh lsodksa dks ftl laaoaxZ fo’ks"k esa ;k in fo’ks"k ij dkyc} izksUufr nsus dk izLrko fopkj.kh; gks ml laoxZ esa ;k ml in ij ;fn lh/kh fu; qfDr gks rks laoxZ esa ;k ml in ij fu; qfDr dh frfFk ls gh 10 o"kZ ;k 25 o"kZ dh lsok dh x.kuk dh tk; sA blds iwoZorhZ loaxZ ;k in ij dh x;h lsok dh x.kuk dkyc} izksUufr ds fufer ugha dh tk; sxhA ;fn igys laoxZ esa laoxhZ; in ij izksUufr …dkyc} izksUufr dks NksM+dj‰ feyh gks rks Hkh nqljs laoxZ esa dkyc} izksUUfr ns; gksxhA …2‰ u, laoxZ esa dkyc} izksUufr nsrs le; ;g ns[kuk vko’;d gS fd u, laoxZ okys in ls iqjkus laoxZ okys in ls izksUufr dh lh/kh J‘a[kyk esa ugha gS vkSj lacaf/kr ljdkjh lsod dks ml laoxhZ; in ij lh/kh fu; qfDR gqbZ gS rFkk osru fu/kkZj.k esa izksUufr dk dksbZ ykHk ugha feyk gSA iqjkus in ij izkIr osru dk laj{k.k nsuk izksUufr dk ykHk ugha ekuk tk; sxkA ;fn mi; qZDr ’kRrsaZ iwjh gksrh gks vkSj ljdkjh lsod dh fu; qfDr u, fljs ls gkus ds ckjs esa lek/kku gkus ij gh u, laoxhZ; in ij dkyc} izksUufr nsus ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A …3‰ ;fn fdlh ljdkjh lsod dks igys laoxZ esa ;k in ij dkyc} izksUufr fey x;h gks rks igys vkSj nqljs laoxZ feyk dj nks ls vf/kd dkyc} izksUufr ns; ugha gksxhA 23 …4‰ ;fn fdlh ekeys esa izFke laoxZ esa dh x;h lsok ds vk/kkj ij 10@25 o"kZ dh lsok dh x.kuk djds izFke@f}rh; dkyc} izksUufr vuqekU; dj fn;k x;k gks vkSj foRr foHkkx dh lgefr izkIr dj vkSipkfjdrk; sa iqwjh dj yh x;h gks rks muds ekeys esa bl vkns’k ds QyLo:i ;fn vf/kd Hkqxrku dk ekeyk curk gks rks vf/kd Hkqxrku dh olwyh ughas dh tk; sxhA ijUrq muds ekeys ij iqufoZpkj djus ij ;g ik;k tk;s fd u;s laoxZ esa fu; qfDr dh frfFk ls 10@25 o"kZ vcrd iwjs ugha gq, gksa rks nh x;h izksUufr dk ykHk vc ls cUn dj fn;k tk;s] ijUrq 10@25 o"kZ dh lsok u, laoxZ esa iqjk gkus dh frfFk ls osru o‘f} vkn lfgr dkyc} izksUufr dk ykHk feyus yxsxkA** Once this position becomes clear in terms of State Government decision dated 6.3.1990 the petitioner could not have been given time bound promotion with effect from 27.10.1983, the order dated

9.11.1987 passed by Executive Engineer cannot bind the Government for the purpose of recovery of government revenue which had been lost on account of aforesaid illegal order passed by the Executive Engineer. This court would therefore, would find no error in part of the impugned order by which the petitioner’s promotion w.e.f.

27.10.1983 has been cancelled with a consequential direction to recover excess amount paid to the petitioner. That would bring this court to the 24 last question as to whether the government had power to recover excess amount already paid to the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and as such he cannot be saddled for recovery has to be appreciated in the light of entitlement. If an officer of the State Government gives or spends the government exchequer in violation of the government decision, it cannot be said that the government has no power to recover the amount especially when after receiving show-cause notice and reply thereof, the petitioner was not able to satisfy with regard to the such excess payment drawn by him. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the full bench of this court in the case of Ram Binod Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (supra) wherein the issue of entitlement has been made the touchstone for deciding the issue of recovery. This court would, therefore, find no merit even in this part of submission of the petitioner. 25 The respondents however are still under obligations to reconsider the entitlement of the petitioner for the time bound promotion at least after completing of ten years of service of the petitioner as on 19.10.1991 provided that the petitioner had not been given any promotion in this period. With aforementioned observations, this writ application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)