Mitku Ram Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Mitku Ram vs State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Mar 04, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/515953

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/515953
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Decided On: Mar 04, 2004
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 2859 of 1997 (R)
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mitku Ram

Advocate R. Krishna, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Advocate R.R. Mishra, G.P. 2 and; Manoj Kumar, J.C. to G.P. 2

Legal References

Acts: Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: [2004(2)JCR239(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......and therefore, he is confining his prayer only with regard to that part of the order as contained in annexure 15 wherein it has been directed to realise the amount which, according to the respondents, has been paid to the petitioner in excess due to the promotion to junior selection grade and senior selection grade which were wrongly given to him.4. it is not in dispute that the promotion to the post of junior selection grade and senior selection grade was given to the petitioner on 28.2.1985 and 18.4.1988 and the petitioner availed the benefit of the said promotion till the impugned order was passed in the year 1997.5. it is not the case of the respondents that promotion to junior selection grade and senior selection grade was granted to the petitioner either on his misrepresentation or by committing any fraud by him in any manner.6. it is settled law that unless it is established that the promotional monetary benefits availed was consequent to misrepresentation or fraud no order for recovery of the same can be passed.7. accordingly this application is partly allowed and the second part of the order as contained in annexure 15 regarding realisation of the amount said to have been paid in excess to the petitioner is hereby quashed.

Full Judgment

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing the order as contained in Annexure 15 dated 20.9.1997 passed by the respondent No, 2, Principle-Chief-Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Doranda, Ranchi whereby the promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade on 20.2.1985 and 18.4.1988 has been cancelled without any notice to show cause with direction for recovery of the excess amount paid to him due to the aforesaid promotion was given to him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially working as van driver in the Forest Department in the scale of 1320-2040/- in Senior Selection Grade right from 1.4.1988.

3. Mr. R. Krishna learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.3.2003 and therefore, he is confining his prayer only with regard to that part of the order as contained in Annexure 15 wherein it has been directed to realise the amount which, according to the respondents, has been paid to the petitioner in excess due to the promotion to Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade which were wrongly given to him.

4. It is not in dispute that the promotion to the post of Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade was given to the petitioner on 28.2.1985 and 18.4.1988 and the petitioner availed the benefit of the said promotion till the impugned order was passed in the year 1997.

5. It is not the case of the respondents that promotion to Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade was granted to the petitioner either on his misrepresentation or by committing any fraud by him in any manner.

6. It is settled law that unless it is established that the promotional monetary benefits availed was consequent to misrepresentation or fraud no order for recovery of the same can be passed.

7. Accordingly this application is partly allowed and the second part of the order as contained in Annexure 15 regarding realisation of the amount said to have been paid in excess to the petitioner is hereby quashed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2004 Same Parties Mitku Ram vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Amareshwar Sahay, J. Acts & Sections Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Service