Patna High Court - Orders
Mahesh Narayan Sah vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 November, 2014
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15142 of 2010
======================================================
1. Mahesh Narayan Sah S/O Late Parmeshwar Sah R/O Vill.- Parora, P.S.-
K. Nagar, Distt.- Purnia
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of
Human Resources Development, Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary Department Of Human Resources Development,
Government Of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director (Primary Education), Government Of Bihar, Patna
4. The District Education Establishment Committee Purnia Through The
District Magistrate, Purnia
5. The District Magistrate, Purnia
6. The District Superintendent Of Education, Purnia
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeeva Roy
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Jha, AC to AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 03-11-20141. This is an application seeking quashing of the order issued vide memo no. 228 dated 28.1.2010 under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Purnia to the extent the same relates to petitioner whereby, the promotion earlier granted to the petitioner in Graduate trained scale has been cancelled after twenty years. The impugned order also contemplates recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner by granting him said Graduate trained scale, which according to the impugned order, he was not entitled to.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no due 2 opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 28.1.2010. He would further submit that some other persons against whom similar office order was issued on the same date had approached this Court by filing writ applications. Referring to one of such orders dated 2.5.2013 passed in CWJC No. 6064 of 2010 and other analogous cases by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed, particularly as the order had admittedly been issued after superannuation of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer contending that the petitioner was wrongly given promotion to Graduate trained scale which he was not entitled to and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
4. Be that as it may, in my view, learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be right in his submission that since no due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, it deserves to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.
5. The impugned order issued vide memo no. 228 dated 28.1.2010 is accordingly, set aside. The respondents will have, however, the liberty to take a decision afresh only after 3 giving due opportunity of representation to the petitioner.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/-
U