Harish Chandra Jha vs State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

“The instant petition is directed for the issuance of a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions preferably a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI/ MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding the respondent authorities for the grant of the following relief/relief (s) in favour of the petitioners:-

(i) For setting aside modified order bearing Memo No. 1980 dated 22.11.2019 whereby and where under the order memo no. 562 dated 25.04.2019 appended with show cause filed in M.J.C. No. 708/2018 treating petitioner to be working as Steno, has been modified to the extent that the earlier order dated 25.04.2019 would be valid for the refund of recovered amount only and any type of benefit for the petitioner would be applicable against the post of clerk only.

(ii) For a direction to the respondents to pay entire post-retirement benefits including full pension, Gratuity, leave encashment and interest thereof accrued on account of superannuation of the petitioner treating the post of Steno after revising grade pay and consequential benefits.

(iii) For any other relief/relief(s) to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the eye of law including the cost of litigation to be paid to the petitioner.”

Petitioner was confirmed in the post of Stenographer on 04.07.1998 and he had attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2015 whereas the concerned respondent proceeded to modify the confirmation order or cancel the confirmation order and treating the petitioner as if he was appointed and confirmed in the post of Clerk, such order was passed on 28.01.2016.

Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the cancellation/modification of the confirmation order, preferred writ petition and it was disposed of on 19.02.2017 asking the petitioner to submit representation. On receipt of representation, the concerned authority proceeded to pass order vide Memo no.1980 dated 22.11.2019 and consequential Memo no.562 dated 25.04.2019. It is to be noted that before cancellation or modification of confirmation order dated 04.07.1998 to the post of Stenographer on 28.01.2016, the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing or his say in the matter. Therefore, the concerned authority is hereby directed to issue a detailed show-cause notice as to why the confirmation order dated 04.07.1998 shall not be cancelled/modified and retaining the petitioner in the post of clerk instead of Stenographer. Such a notice shall be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner shall submit his explanation to the notice to be issued by the concerned authority. Thereafter, the concerned authority is required to pass a speaking order after due consideration of petitioner’s service particulars read with explanation to be submitted by him. That apart, if petitioner has discharged the duties of the post of Stenographer from the inception till retirement, is it fair to modify his status after decade. If any relaxation or discretion power is vested, the same shall be invoked without having service particulars of the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today, failing which the concerned authority shall present in the Court on the next date of hearing with all relevant records. Further, petitioner’s retiral benefits shall be settled to the extent of 50% in the Stenographer cadre, if it is not settled as on today with a rider, such settlement is subject to the result of this petition.

Re-list this case on 06.07.2022.