NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).   217 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.22442 of 2017)

SUKH BILASH THAKUR          ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY  BOARD AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

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

appeal.  

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

1

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

2

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 twenty­

five 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.

3

The dues shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent till the date of

actual payment.

6. The appeal is allowed.

.……………………….J.        (Arun Mishra)

………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)   

New Delhi, January 09, 2019.

4