JUDGMENT : U. N. Sinha, C. J. & K. B. N. Singh, J. This application has been filed by the petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs :- “(a) to confirm the Petitioner with effect from the due date that is 7.3.1952; (b) to fix the pay of the petitioners after permitting him to cross the efficiency bar in terms of his confirmation with effect from due date, or, alternatively in terms of the Accountant Generals letter contained in Annexure 3 and to pass all other consequential ORDER :in respect of arrears etc,; (c) to consider the case of petitioner and to promote him as Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police and to accord to him seniority in terms of his place in the gradation list of Deputy Superintendent of Police; (d) any other relief including costs by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of the respondents. 2. The relevant facts mentioned in the writ application are as• follows: The petitioner was directly recruited as a probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police on the 7th March, 1949 and according to Bihar and Orissa Police Manual, such a directly recruited officer is to be confirmed at the end of his period of probation for three yers, if he has shown himself fit to perform the duties of a Deputy Superintendent during the period of his probation and he has passed the departmental examination within the specified period. The relevant rule is Rule 648 A. The petitioner passed his departmental examination during the period of his probation, but he was not formally confirmed at the end of three years of the appointment. Ultimately, the petitioner was confirmed with effect from the 7th March, 1958, after his probationary period was extended. If the petitioner had been confirmed on the due date, the stage of crossing the first efficiency bar in the old scale of pay of Rs.220-25-320-E. E.-25-670-M. B.-20-50 would have been reached on the 7th March, 1954. On being confirmed in 1958, the petitioner sent a representation dated the 9th December, 1958 to the State Government (Annexure 4) praying that he may be confirmed from 1952 and be allowed to cross the efficiency bar from 7th March, 1954. On being confirmed in 1958, the petitioner sent a representation dated the 9th December, 1958 to the State Government (Annexure 4) praying that he may be confirmed from 1952 and be allowed to cross the efficiency bar from 7th March, 1954. It is said that this representation has not been disposed of by any specific ORDER :. On the 14th October, 1960 the State Government issued a direction to the Accountant-General, Bihar referring to the subject as "Grant of increments to the Deputy Superintendents of Police, question of allowing the pay at the stages to which they would have been entitled if their pay had not been held up for delay in the confirmation." It will be necessary to quote this letter in full as follows : Sir, I am directed to say that a probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed direct is allowed to draw his first increment after completion of one year's service and passing the prescribed test in drill and riding, second increment after completion of two years' service and passing the departmental examination completely, and third increment on completion of three years’ service or on confirmation in his appointment whichever is later. The result of existing ORDER :s has been that a directly recruited Deputy Superintendent of Police has been put to a cumulative loss for all times in respect of his future increment if there had been delay in confirmation. After careful consideration, Government have decided that a directly recruited Deputy Superintendent of Police on confirmation will be allowed the pay at the stage to which he would have been entitled had his increment not been withheld for delay in fulfilling the departmental obligations. No arrear payment on this account will, however, be made to any officer. 2. This ORDER :would be applicable to all Deputy Superintendent of Police in service on 27th April. 1960." A copy of this letter has been given as Annexure 1. [By Annexure 8 appended to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner, a direction was given by the State Government to the Accountant-General, Bihar, dated the 28th August, 1963. by which the words "for the delay in fulfilling the departmental obligations", occurring in Annexure 1, should now be read as "for delay in confirmation". This fresh direction was to be effective from the 14th October, 1960]. 3. by which the words "for the delay in fulfilling the departmental obligations", occurring in Annexure 1, should now be read as "for delay in confirmation". This fresh direction was to be effective from the 14th October, 1960]. 3. As a follow up the Annexure I, the State Government sent a letter to the Accountant-General, Bihar (Annexure 2), requesting him to report the date and the stage at which the petitioner should be allowed to cross the first efficiency bar. This letter must have been written sometime between the 14th October, 1960 and the 25th January, 1961. On the 25th January, 1961, the Accountant-General wrote to the State Government on the subject of the petitioner crossing the first efficiency bar (vide Annexure 3), stating that necessary ORDER :s may be passed by the Government at an early date to enable the Accountant-General’s office to revise the pay of the petitioner in the light of the Government direction given on the 14th October, 1960. The relevant portion of this letter runs as follows : "In pursuance of the instructions contained under the Government of Bihar, Political Department, Letter No.I/P3-205/59-PP9660 dt. 14.10.60, the pay of Sri Jwala Prasad Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, requires to be refixed consequent upon his confirmation in the rank of a Dy. S. P. with effect from 7.3.1958. In accordance with the Government letter as quoted above, Sri Singh will be entitled to the sum of Rs. 445/-in the scale of Rs. 220-25-320-E. B.-25-670-E. B. 20-775 if he is allowed to cross the first efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 320/- with effect from 7.3.1954." According to the petitioner, the request made in this letter has not yet been complied with, with the result that the State Government has not yet passed any ORDER :with respect to the petitioner's crossing of the first efficiency bar. The petitioner has mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ application, that, in a similar case of Shri N. C. Mishra, whose period of probation had been extended by the State Government an ORDER :had been passed allowing Shri Mishra to cross the first efficiency bar from the date of his confirmation. The petitioner has mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ application, that, in a similar case of Shri N. C. Mishra, whose period of probation had been extended by the State Government an ORDER :had been passed allowing Shri Mishra to cross the first efficiency bar from the date of his confirmation. The State Government's ORDER :has been quoted in this paragraph as follows : "The undersigned is directed to• refer to A. I. F. Memo No. 591A dated - 4th December, 1961 on the above subject and to say that the State Government have been pleased to allow Shri N. C. Mishra to cross E. B. at Rs. 320/- in the prescribed scale of Dy. S. P. with effect from 1.7.60 which is the date of his confirmation." In Paragraph 10 of the writ application the petitioner has stated that even after over 22 years of service, he is drawing a pay of Rs.445/-per month which, in the normal course, without taking in t account his claim for promotion, would have been Rs. 925/- per month. [These figures are, of course, in the new scale of pay, which is Rs. 325-30-505-E.B.-30-905-30 985 maximum Rs. 925]. 4. To continue with the petitioner's history of service, he has given a copy of a letter dated the 28th March, 1961 (Annexure 4A), sent by the Assistant (Sic) to the Inspector General of Police to the State Government, enquiring if any ORDER :had been passed by the Government on the Accountant General's letter (Annexure 3). So far as the record of the writ case shows, no reply to this letter is available. On the 2nd June, 1962 the petitioner sent a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Bihar (Annexure 5) requesting that his grievances may be redressed and to fix his pay at Rs.445/- on the 7th March, 1958, whereas he was still drawing Rs.320/- per month, which he was drawing in 1954. On the 2nd June, 1962 the petitioner sent a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Bihar (Annexure 5) requesting that his grievances may be redressed and to fix his pay at Rs.445/- on the 7th March, 1958, whereas he was still drawing Rs.320/- per month, which he was drawing in 1954. According to the petitioner, he sent various other reminders to the authorities concerned with respect to his grievance, but the matter continued the same stage as it was before and on the 15th December, 1955 a letter was issued from the office of the Inspector General of Police to the petitioner (Annexure 6A) on the question of his, crossing efficiency ,bar and fixation of pay and this letter mentioned that the matter was still under consideration of the Government and semiofficial reminders had been issued in this connection. Nothing seems to have happened even thereafter. The last document of the petitioner to which reference may be made in this connection is a letter said to be sent by the petitioner in 1967 to the Minister Incharge of Police Branch (Annexure 7) drawing his attention to the petitioner's grievances. According to the petitioner, he did not receive any reply to this communication. 5. The substance of the counter affidavit of the State of Bihar may now be mentioned. There is no dispute that the period of probation of a directly recruited Deputy Superintendent of Police is three years, but it is stated that the petitioner was not confirmed with effect from the 7th March, 1958, as there were certain adverse allegations against him and his conduct was being watched before confirmation. Therefore, his period of probation was extended from time to time upto the 6th March, 1958, and he was confirmed by Notification dated the 24th September, 1958, with effect from the 7th March, 1958. On the question of: the petitioner crossing the efficiency bar, it has been stated that he has been held up' on account of other allegations against him, which are being enquired into. A draft of these allegations has been appended to this counter affidavit- and marked -as Annexure D. Referring to the case of Shri N. C. Mishra, it is mentioned that the charge of discrimination was without merit. It is mentioned at the end of the counter affidavit, that, a departmental proceeding is going to be instituted against the petitioner. A draft of these allegations has been appended to this counter affidavit- and marked -as Annexure D. Referring to the case of Shri N. C. Mishra, it is mentioned that the charge of discrimination was without merit. It is mentioned at the end of the counter affidavit, that, a departmental proceeding is going to be instituted against the petitioner. Reference may be made here to the draft charges incorporated in Annexure D and this document has• mentioned certain allegations against the petitioner with respect to certain events which had taken place in 1963 and 1964. It may be mentioned at this stage, that, the writ application had been filed on the 19th May, 1971 and was admitted on the 5th July, 1971. After an opportunity had been given by the Court on the 28th June, 1971 to the learned counsel for the State to obtain instructions in the matter, the counter-affidavit was filed on the 8th September, 1971, containing the draft charges. The hearing of the writ application; had commenced on the 9th September, 1971, but the case was thereafter adjourned for sometime by consent of the parties. On the 19th October, 1971 the writ petitioner filed an application ~ under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that the draft charges had been framed against him only to take revenge for his coming to this Court for relief. The petitioner made a prayer for preventing the State from instituting departmental proceeding against him and for withdrawing the ORDER :of suspension. The court passed an ORDER :that this application would be considered at the time of the hearing of the writ case itself. Hearing of the writ case was resumed on the 23rd October, 1971 and thereafter, on the 29th October, 1971 an application was filed by the writ petitioner stating that in the forenoon of that day he had received copies of two ORDER :s of the State Government placing him under suspension and forwarding certain charges framed against him. These documents have been marked as Annexures (ii) and (iii), the date of Annexure (ii) being 24th September, 1971, with which the charges were enclosed. 6. These documents have been marked as Annexures (ii) and (iii), the date of Annexure (ii) being 24th September, 1971, with which the charges were enclosed. 6. The main arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that when his client was confirmed with effect from the 7th March, 1958 and when the due date for crossing the first efficiency bar was 7th March, 1954, the Government direction incorporated in Annexure 1, dated the 14th October, 1960 must lead to the conclusion that his pay on the date of confirmation would be as if he had not been held up at the first efficiency bar, and that Annexure 2, the State Government must be deemed to have allowed the petitioner to cross the first efficiency bar with effect from the due date, namely, 7th March, 1954. Out attention has been drawn to Rule 84 of the Bihar Service Code, which runs as follows : "84. Where an efficiency bar is prescribed in a time scale, the increment next above the bar shall not be given to a Government servant without the specific sanction of the authority empowered to withhold increments". Reference has also been made to Rule 83 of the Service Code by learned counsel for the parties, which runs as follows :- “83. An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course, unless it is withheld. The authority empowered to make a substantive appointment to the post which a Government servant holds, may, if it considers that the conduct of such Government 'servant has not been good or that his work is not satisfactory, withhold an increment from him. In the Police Departments, Deputy Inspectors General are empowered to withhold the increments of Sergeants, Major, Inspectors, Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors and Superintendents are empowered to withhold the increments of Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors. In ORDER :ing the withholding of an increment, such authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments." The effect of Annexure 1 may now be considered, as it is to be read now after Annexure 8. This direction of the Government had stated that a directly recruited probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police would draw his third increment in pay on completion of three years' service, after he has passed certain tests and examinations, or on confirmation in his appointment, whichever is later. This direction of the Government had stated that a directly recruited probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police would draw his third increment in pay on completion of three years' service, after he has passed certain tests and examinations, or on confirmation in his appointment, whichever is later. This arrangement had put such an officer to cumulative loss, if there had been delay in confirmation, and, therefore, the Government had decided that such an officer on confirmation, will be allowed to draw pay at the stage he would have been entitled had the increment not been withheld for delay in confirmation. No arrears of pay were, however, to be made available. Therefore, in the case of the present petitioner, when he was confirmed in 1958, he was entitled to draw pay from that stage, as if his increment had not been withheld on confirmation. It will appear from Annexure 2, that, after the petitioner had been confirmed with effect from the 7th March, 1958, the Accountant-General, Bihar had written to the State Government, showing that the petitioner's pay was Rs. 320/- on the 7th March, 1959, that is to say, the petitioner had reached the pay at the stage of first efficiency bar on that date. But the State Government drew the attention of the Accountant-General to Annexure 1, stating that when the petitioner was confirmed with effect from the 7th Much, 1958, his pay should be fixed in the light of the ORDER :contained in that document. The Accountant-General was, therefore, requested to report the date and the stage at which the petitioner should be allowed to cross the first efficiency bar in the prescribed scale of pay under the provisions of the Government ORDER :contained in Annexure 1. Then Annexure 3 followed, the main part of which has been quoted above. According to the Accountant-General, if the petitioner had been allowed to cross the first efficiency bar with effect from the 7th March, 1954, he would have reached the pay of Rs.445/- per month on the 7th March, 1958, on confirmation. The Accountant-General had requested for necessary ORDER :s to be passed by the Government allowing the petitioner to cross the first efficiency bar, so that his pay can be revised. The Accountant-General had requested for necessary ORDER :s to be passed by the Government allowing the petitioner to cross the first efficiency bar, so that his pay can be revised. If the State Government had passed specific ORDER :, allowing the petitioner to cross the first efficiency bar from the 7th March, 1954, or from any other later date, the petitioner would have drawn his pay according to the appropriate scale at present. But, we have already mentioned earlier that the petitioner was drawing Rs.320/per month in 1962, as mentioned in his letter (Annexure 5). Even in 1967, the petitioner had complained by Annexure 7, that he was drawing Rs. 445/- per month in the new scale, which was equivalent to Rs.320/- in the old scale. According to Paragraph 10 of the writ petition, as stated earlier, the petitioner is still drawing Rs.445/- per month, whereas he should have drawn Rs.925/- per month in the new scale of pay. This claim is, of course, based on the petitioner's claim of being allowed to cross the first efficiency bar on the 7th March, 1954. In our opinion, the petitioner's claim based on Annexure I, for fixing his pay, is justified, although his claim for allowing him to cross the first efficiency bar may not be so. The query made by the Accountant General (Annexure 3), as early as in 1961, was quite legitimate, on the petitioner being confirmed with effect from the 7th March, 1958. On receipt of this request, the State Government should have passed some ORDER :with respect to allowing the petitioner to cross the first efficiency bar either from the 7th March, 1954 or from the 7th March, 1958, which was the date of his confirmation. According to Rule 84 of the Bihar Service Code, there having been an efficiency bar in the prescribed time scale of pay, the Accountant-General could not sanction the petitioner's pay at more than Rs.320/-per month, without specific sanction of the State Government, Thus, for the inaction of the State Government, the petitioner is still drawing his pay as if he is not entitled to any increment in the pay at which he had reached on the date of his confirmation. It is difficult to find any justification for this inaction from the case made out by the State Government in its counter-affidavit. It is difficult to find any justification for this inaction from the case made out by the State Government in its counter-affidavit. As mentioned earlier, the counter-affidavit states that the petitioner has been held up at the first efficiency bar, as certain allegations had been made against him, which are being enquired into. The whole history of the charges made against the petitioner and of what is being done at present has already been narrated. But there does not appear to be any justifiable reason for the inaction in the matter of passing an ORDER :permitting the petitioner to cross the first efficiency bar, as envisaged by Rule 83 of the Bihar Service Code, if that was necessary. The enquiry into the charges mentioned in the draft charges or the final charges framed against the petitioner now cannot be taken to be sufficient ground for the State Government's inaction by which the petitioner has suffered monetary loss. The petitioner has alleged that framing of the draft charges against him during the pendency of the writ case and taking further proceedings in the matter were motivated by the fact that the petitioner came to this Court for relief and that charges have been framed against him only to take vengeance. The petitioner has also submitted that the charges framed against him have no substance at all. It may very well be, that, in some appropriate proceeding the petitioner may succeed on these contentions, but in this writ application we do not propose to go into this aspect of the matter. All that is necessary to state here is that it was rather curious that the charges were framed against the petitioner and action was taken against him after a long delay and during the pendency of the writ case. However, now it will have to be ascertained as to what relief the petitioner can obtain in this writ case, if any. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that on an interpretation of Annexures 1 and 2, the State Government should have passed an ORDER :allowing him to cross the first efficiency bar with effect from the 7th March, 1954, cannot succeed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that on an interpretation of Annexures 1 and 2, the State Government should have passed an ORDER :allowing him to cross the first efficiency bar with effect from the 7th March, 1954, cannot succeed. The due date for confirmation according to Rule 648-A of the Bihar and Orissa Police Manual was 7th March, 1952, and the stage of crossing the first efficiency bar, in the normal course, was 7th March, 1954, and when the petitioner was confirmed with effect from the 7th March, 1948, he should not have been allowed to cross the first efficiency bar from the 7th March, 1954. As there is no material on the record to show as to why the petitioner was not allowed to cross the first efficiency bar with effect from the date of his confirmation, namely, the 7th March, 1958, the petitioner is entitled to an ORDER :in his favour to the effect that he must be taken to have crossed the first efficiency bar on being confirmed. On the interpretation of Annexure 1, as amended, the petitioner is entitled to draw his pay on the 7th March, 1958, at the rate at which he would have been entitled to have his increment not been withheld for delay in confirmation. Now, reverting to the prayers made by the petitioner in Paragraph 21 of his writ application, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to reliefs no. (a) and (c). As a matter of fact, relief no.(c), which was for promotion, was not seriously pressed. But in view of the general prayer incorporated in Paragraph 21 (b), the petitioner is entitled to an ORDER :to the effect that the State Government must now treat the petitioner as if he had crossed the first efficiency bar on the 7th March, 1958, on his confirmation and, therefore, all other consequential reliefs following therefrom must follow expeditiously. 7. The writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs. Application allowed In part