Secretary, Finance Department, Government v. of Bihar, Patna
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11985 of 2008 ====================================================== Ramadhar Thakur, son of late Ram Baran Thakur, resident of village-Semra Nijamat, P.O.-Bishunpur Patti, P.S.-Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-Cum- Secretary, Finance Department, Government Versus of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Accounts Administration-cum-Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur. 5. The District Treasury Officer, Samastipur. 6. The Secretary /Commissioner, Minor Irrigation Department, Vikash Bhawan, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Project Co-ordinator, Tube Well Project, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 8. The Managing Director, Bihar Water Development Corporation, Daroga
Legal Reasoning
mentioned here that the judgment of this Court in the case of those three persons were separate judgment were annexed to the writ petition itself. But, in the counter affidavit nothing was shown or pleaded that those judgment did not apply to the petitioner because of any material difference in facts. It may also be noted here that against the judgment of Rameshwar Singh, State preferred Letters Patent Appeal without success. The State went to the Apex Court without success. In all the three cases the ultimate decision was that the right pay-scale to which they entitled was Rs.5500-9000. The Court, therefore, directed that on the assumption that this was the wrong pay-scale, no recoveries could be made wherever this was not the pay-scale used. To fix the salary including the last pay that would be accordingly corrected and salary re-fixed accordingly with retiral benefit to be fixed accordingly. In this writ petition also substantial prayer of the petitioner is the same. Petitioner’s salary was never revised though he represented. There is no question of any demand of any refund from him on the plea that his salary wrongly be fixed rather the petitioner, who states that he being exactly similar situated to the other three persons, should have been given the same treatment. The department not having given the same treatment of Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2008 (06) dt.08-03-2013 - 4 - this petitioner, the writ petition was filed. Having examined the facts, I find no difference in the material facts as between this petitioner and the other three persons, as mentioned above. The controversy is merely because they all belonged to the Water Resources Department and had been deputed to the Provident Fund Department. They were all being reconstructed in the super time pay-scale because it was so provided in the Provident Fund Department. But, as noticed above, this Court in the earlier cases has clearly negatived that aspect of the matter and directed that the super time pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 is payable to these petitioners, accordingly, there cannot be any escape from the facts that the petitioner’s salary ought to have been refused on par with that of Rameshwar Singh, Trilokee Prasad Verma and Dharnidhar Jha. Once the same is done then his pensionary benefits would also have to be revised accordingly. As the petitioner has already retired from service as super time selection grade head clerk in the year 2008 itself, it would be expected that the respondent no.3, Joint Commissioner Accounts Administration-cum-Director Provident Fund Directorate would, accordingly, revise the salary of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 and recalculate his pensionary benefits. All this exercise must be completed within a period of Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2008 (06) dt.08-03-2013 - 5 - two months from today. However, so far as the grant of A.C.P. is concerned, the petitioner would have liberty to move before the authorities by pointing out to proper notification that he had not violated any condition to disentitle him from getting A.C.P. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Arguments
Prasad Rai Path, Sri Krishnapuri, Patna. 9. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to SC-6. For the Accountant General : Mr. Mani Kant Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 06 08-03-2013 This writ petition was earlier heard and allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 18.03.2009 with a cost of Rs.10,000. The State filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was allowed though there was no interference with regard to the order of cost. As apparent from the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, apparently, the ground which persuaded the Appellate Court to interfere was the plea by the State that there were certain documents which could not be placed on record and were not considered by the Single Judge. It is under these circumstances Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2008 (06) dt.08-03-2013 - 2 - the matter has been re-listed before this Court. As before, once again learned counsel for the petitioner states that his case is identical, not similar, to those of Rameshwar Singh, Trilokee Prasad Verma and Dharnidhar Jha along with Shiv Charan Paswan. All three were in the Water Resources Department and then they were deputed to Provident Fund Department. There were differences in pay-scales in the cadre between people in the Water Resources Department and in the Provident Fund Department. That is essential. What has caused all the confusion is that upon retirement all three were issued with orders whereby deductions were sought to be made from the retiral dues on account of wrong pay-scale fixation earlier in their service period. They contested the matter. It was held in those cases that the pay-scale fixed was correct and recoveries could not be made in two of the cases, i.e., Trilokee Prasad Verma and Dharnidhar Jha. It was specifically directed that retiral dues must be calculated on basis of the correct pay- scale of the petitioners, being Rs.5500-9000. In the present writ petition, the State raises the same very issue, being that the petitioner is not entitled to pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, they have not been able to distinguish the case of the petitioner from Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2008 (06) dt.08-03-2013 - 3 - the cases of the other three persons, as noted above. It may be
Decision
writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.