1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by his order of reversion dated
09.08.2007 from the post of Bill Clerk to that of Khalasi. The High
Court declined interference with the same and thus the present
3. The appellant was appointed as a Bill Clerk on 03.02.1981. After
passing the departmental examination and having completed 18 years
of service, he staked a claim for grant of senior level grade. The
respondents then issued a show cause notice to him on 03.07.2006
that he had secured appointment as a Bill Clerk by fraudulent
methods and suppressing the fact that he did not possess the requisite
qualification for the post, and was thus liable to be reverted. In his
reply dated 12.07.2006, the appellant asserted that he was appointed
after verification of his educational qualifications and qualifying in the
written examination followed by an interview. He had not indulged in
any fraud or suppression. There had been no complaints against him
in discharge of duties as a Bill Clerk. The impugned order without
considering the cause shown, simply recited “after careful
consideration” and rejected the cause shown without reasons.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Manifestly from
the materials on record there has been no suppression or fraud by the
appellant in securing appointment to the post of Bill Clerk on
03.02.1981. Indisputably he was appointed after verification of his
qualifications and through the process of a competitive examination
followed by an interview. There have been no allegations against him
in discharge of his duties as a Bill Clerk. The appellant, in the cause
shown, had explained that at the time he appeared at the
matriculation examination, mathematics was compulsory upto class 9
only. The appellant had passed the departmental examination in
service. It is only when he staked his claim for selection grade, the
respondents appear to have woken up from their stupor nearly twentyfive years later seeking to raise issues with regard to the appointment.
Unfortunately, these factors did not fall for consideration by the High
Court despite being available on record.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider
the order of reversion issued nearly twentyfive years later to be highly
unjust, inequitable and arbitrary suffering from the vice of
unreasonableness. Consequently, it is held to be unsustainable. We
also notice that the appellant has already retired from service. The
impugned order of reversion is therefore set aside. The appellant shall
be entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with law as if the
order of reversion had never been passed. Pensionary benefits and
other retiral dues shall be paid to him within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order.
The dues shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent till the date of
6. The appeal is allowed.
January 09, 2019.
We are excited to have you as a valued member of our Supreme Court Digests Community.
Download latest Supreme Court Monthly/Yearly Digests.