Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: wrongly given promotion in Smt. Normi Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 11 October, 2007Matching Fragments
Page 0290
1. Smt. Normi Topno, on being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the action of recovery of the excess payment from her pension and gratuity, has filed this letters patent appeal.
2. The appellant got retired from service on 30.09.1999 as A.N.M from Primary Health Centre, Boarijor, Godda. Thereupon her pension papers were sent to the Accountant General. On scrutiny, the Accountant General found that she was wrongly granted Time Bound Promotion. Therefore, the Accountant General returned the papers for clarification. The Department scrutinized the papers and found that the appellant was wrongly given Time Bound Promotion. Therefore, pension papers were forwarded to the Accountant General for recovery of Rs. 50,456/-, the excess amount paid to her from her pension/Gratuity. Challenging the said action of the authorities, Smt. Normi Topno filed a writ petition in W.P.(S) No. 2668 of 2003 before the learned Single Judge. The same was dismissed on 25.01.2006 holding that the action of recovery is justified in view of the Division Ranch Judgment in State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. (Smt.) Girish Kumari Prasad and Ors. and Ram Chandra Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2005 (2) JLJR 705.
(ix) In the meantime, the pension papers were sent to the Accountant General on 09.02.2001.
(x) On 18.03.2001, the papers were returned by the Accountant General seeking for a clarification, since according to the Accountant General petitioner was wrongly granted Time Bound Promotion as she was initially appointed as Trained Dai.
(xi) When the Department scrutinized the papers, it found that the appellant was wrongly given First Time Bound Promotion on 15.02.1990 with effect from 16.04.1981 and again on 15.02.1996 she was given Second Time Bound Promotion with effect from 16.04.1994. Therefore, the respondent-authorities passed an order dated 13.03.2007 for recovery of Rs. 50,456/- from her pension and gratuity which was said to be paid in excess.
13. The above observations would make it clear the following two aspects:
(i) Unless it is established that excess amount was received by the employee either on misrepresentation or fraud or negligence, the amount paid cannot be recovered from the employee, that too from the pension and gratuity even without any opportunity of being heard causing serious prejudice to the person.
(ii) Unless there is an inquiry with reference to the question whether the time bound promotion has been wrongly given and unless the order giving such promotion is cancelled on that reason, the consequent recovery cannot be made.
39. From the facts appearing on record, it is evident that there is no allegation of any mis-representation or misconduct by the appellant at any stage when the time bound promotion was given; the orders of time bound promotions were issued long back in the year 1990 and 1996; thereafter the pay scales were fixed by the authorities concerned and the appellant got her salary on the basis of the said orders of the competent authorities; She also discharged duties of the promoted offices; no dispute was ever raised regarding her promotion or pay scale during her service period and after her retirement to the prejudice of the appellant, now the orders of recovery of alleged excess payment has been issued on the basis that time bound promotion was given wrongly.