REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CIVIL APPEAL NO.2671 OF 2009                 (Arising out of SLP©No.18372 of 2007)

Paras Nath Singh             …Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar & Ors.        …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. The appellant was appointed on the post of Orderly in

the  Department  of  Planning  and  Development  in  the

State of Bihar and he has since retired.  In 1972, more

precisely  on  29th of  August,  1972,  the  appellant  was

promoted to the post of Machine Boy and subsequent to

such promotion, he was made Routine Clerk on 13th of

June, 1974 and was allowed to function as such on the

said  post.   On  15th of  April,  1995,  the  appellant  was

given provisional First Time Bound Promotion with effect

1

from 13th of  June,  1984.   After  about  10 years,  more

precisely  on  19th of  September,  2005,  the  First  Time

Bound  Promotion  granted  to  the  appellant  was

cancelled.   In  view of  such cancellation  of  promotion,

direction was issued by the State/Respondent to recover

Rs. 1,01,529.50 from the salary of the appellant at the

rate of Rs. 5000/- per month.   

3. Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  directing  recovery,  the

appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at

Patna contending that since the time bound promotion given to him

was at the fag end of his employment and that the appellant,  once

having worked in the time bound promotional post, recovery against

him was not justified.  The writ petition, however, was dismissed by

a learned Judge of the High Court and affirmed by a Division Bench

of the High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal.   

4. Feeling aggrieved,  the appellant  has filed this  special  leave

petition,  which  on  grant  of  leave,  was  heard  in  presence  of  the

learned counsel for the parties.   

2

5. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and

considering  the  fact  that  the  State  Authorities  had  allowed  the

appellant  to  work  for  about  10 years  and paid  the  salary  at  the

enhanced rate,  in which the appellant  had no role to play except

that he had given an undertaking to the Authorities that in the event,

his  First  Time Bound Promotion was cancelled,  in  that  case,  he

would be bound to refund the same.   

6. Having considered the fact that the appellant was only a Class

IV employee in the State of Bihar and almost an illiterate person

and did not know the implications of giving such undertaking and in

the absence of  any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to the

appellant and the amount being not so excessive, in particular Rs.

1,01,529.50,  out  of  which  certain  amount  has  already  been

recovered from the salary of the appellant by the State Authorities,

we are  of  the  view that  a  lenient  view should be taken  and the

amount already paid by the State Authorities to the appellant shall

not be recovered.   

7. However, whatever amount that has already been recovered,

shall not be paid back to the appellant.   

3

8. In view of the above, the impugned Judgments  of the

High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the

appellant  stands  allowed.   For  the  reasons  aforesaid,

the  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  extent  indicated  above.

There will be no order as to costs.       

                                                                          ……………………J.                                                                            [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ……………………J. April 21, 2009. [V.S.Sirpurkar]

4