Supreme Court quashes 12 year old order of Chief Justice led Patna High Court's Division Bench

In Jagdish Prasad  Singh Vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan concluded that the Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar misinterpreted and misapplied the State Government's Resolution dated February 8, 1999 to the detriment of the appellant. It found that Patna High Court's Division Bench too had erred like the Secretary. The case was filed on November 1, 2012. The case was registered on February 20, 2013. The judgement was delivered on August 8, 2024.  

The Court observed:"We firmly believe that any decision taken by 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. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, this Court held that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery." The Court is referring to the verdict of 2009. 

It also drew on its decisions in  ITC Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2011), State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (2015) and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and Others (2022).     

The Supreme Court order records that the Resolution clearly postulates that the same would not have any adverse effect on the employees who had received the time bound promotions prior to December 31, 1995. The appellant was given time bound promotion as Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer (ADSO) on March 10, 1991, which was long before the cut off date fixed under the said Government Resolution, i.e., 31st December, 1995 and thus, he was rightfully conferred the benefit of the revised pay scale i.e. Rs.6500-10500 under the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. The Government Resolution clearly indicated the cut-off date as December 31, 1995, the appellant would be protected from the adverse effects thereof and was entitled to protect his promotion and pay scale. The Court found that like the Secretary, both Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Patna High Court fell in error while interpreting the Resolution which protects the time bound promotion offered to the appellant as per his entitlement on March 10, 1991 and so also the revised pay scale applicable to the said post under the 5th Pay Commission. 

The Court observed that "we are of the view that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. Thus, no such action could have been taken against the appellant, more particularly, because he had been promoted as an ADSO, while drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 applicable to the post, way back on 10th March, 1991 and had also superannuated eight years ago before the recovery notice dated 15th April, 2009 was issued. 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." 

The High Court had several occasions to set matters right. Initially, the case was filed and registered on May 18, 2009. But it was disposed of by Justice V.N. Sinha with a specific direction to the Department of Food and Consumer Protection. The order reads: "Let the Deputy Secretary or the higher authorities consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.5.2009, Annexure-7 to this application as early as possible, in any case, within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order."

Later, the case was filed and registered in the High Court on December 16, 2009. The first order of Justice V. N. Sinha dated January 21, 2010 reads: As prayed for by the counsel for the State, A.C. to AAG-8, put up on 29.1.2010 maintaining its position in the same list so as to enable him to seek instruction to satisfy this Court as to why the impugned order, bearing Memo no. 4218 dated 8.10.2009, Annexure-14 be not quashed in view of clause 11 of the resolution of the Finance Department dated 8.2.1999, which protects the promotions earned prior to 31.12.1995/1.1.1996." In his final order, Justice Sinha wrote: " I do not find any illegality in the impugned order bearing Memo No. 4218 dated 08.10.2009 passed by the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department (Annexure-14) and the application is dismissed." Ashutosh Kumar was the counsel for the petitioner. 

Subsequently, the case was filed and registered in the High Court on September 8, 2011 against the State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department, Bihar, the Accountant General of Bihar, Patna, the Deputy Secretary, Food Supply Commerce Department, Bihar, Patna, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, the Sub-Divisional Officer (West), Muzaffarpur and the District Accounts Officer, Muzaffarpur. The case was disposed off on August 27, 2012 by the Division Bench of Chief Justice R.M. Doshit and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The order concluded: "The higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 claimed by the appellant is not sustainable. Learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine." The order was authored by Chief Justice Doshit. This order has been quashed by the Supreme Court after almost 12 years.   

The penultimate paragraphs of the order, it reads: "The order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the State Government directing reduction in the pay scale of the appellant from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and directing recovery of the excess amount from him is grossly illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed. Therefore, the appellant shall continue to receive the pension in accordance with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In case, if any reduction in pension and consequential recovery was effected on account of the impugned orders, the appellant shall be entitled to the restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as applicable." The order was authored by Justice Mehta.