Jagdish Prasad Singh vs State of Bihar and Others

10.03.991 is not in dispute – It is not the case of the respondents that the said promotion suffered from any irregularity or was given against the rules and regulations – The Resolution dated 19.01.1991 indicates that the next promotional channel from the post of the Lower Senior Grade (Marketing Officer) was to the post of Upper Senior Grade (Upper Marketing Officer) – The appellant having been duly promoted to the post of Upper Senior Grade (Upper Marketing Officer) w.e.f. 10.03.1991 was entitled to and was rightly given the pay scale of the promotional post – Pursuant to the 5th Pay Commission being applied, the Government of Bihar issued a Resolution dated 08.02.1999, whereby the pay scale applicable to the post of Upper Senior Grade (Upper Marketing Officer) was revised from Rs. 2000-3800 to Rs. 6500-10500 – The paragraph 11 of the said Government Resolution specifically protects the promotions granted to the employees prior to 31.12.1995 – Apparently the appellant could not have been put to a disadvantage and his pay scale could not have been reduced prospectively by virtue of the said Resolution – The order whereby it was communicated to the appellant that it was decided to recover a sum of Rs. 63,765/paid in excess due to mistake in fixation of pay, also indicates that a departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant which had led to the impugned action – No departmental action could have been initiated by the State against the appellant after eight years following his superannuation because the employer employee relationship had come to an end after the appellant’s superannuation – The order directing reduction in pay scale and recovery from the appellant was manifestly not preceded by any show cause notice and was thus, passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice – The State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap – The Government Resolution dated 08.02.1999 to be specific, is amenable to the interpretation that it protects the status and pay of those employees who had received their time bound promotions prior to 31.12.1995 – The said Resolution was misinterpreted and misapplied to the detriment of the appellant – Thus, the impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26]