Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 718 (JHR)

Paltu Charan Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-07-05

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER 1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for payment of monthly pension which -is not being paid to him since the date of his retirement. 2. The petitioner joined the service as Health Worker in 1961. It is stated that he got training as Sanitary Inspector in 1978 and was granted first time bound promotion in 1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-565/-. In 1985 he was promoted to the post of Sanitary Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 535-690/-. In 1986 he was placed in the scale of Rs. 1,200-1,880/-. Again on 1.4.1991 he was granted super selection time scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300/- which was the pay scale of Sanitary Inspector. Again in 1996 the petitioner was given the scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/-. On 28.2.2001 the petitioner retired from the post of Sanitary Inspector. After retirement, in the matter of fixation of final pension the Accountant General, Bihar informed the Medical Officer about the irregular fixation of pay of the petitioner. In the objection raised by the Account General it was stated that qualifying service of 10-25 years for grant of first and second time bound promotion should have been taken from 6.11.1995 but the petitioner was allowed second time bound promotion wrongly with effect from 1.4.1986 taking into account the service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 11.9.1961 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State it was stated that pension papers and the , service book of the petitioner was sent to the office of the Accountant General, Bihar for final approval but the documents were returned with objection that the petitioners salary was wrongly fixed while giving him first time bound promotion. 4. From perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State and the Accountant General, Bihar in appears that there is no averments that the petitioner was given pay scale in 1985 and 1986 on misrepresentation of facts from his side. The petitioner never misrepresented his case before the authorities nor he played any fraud either for getting time bound promotion or for getting promotional benefits. The entire service record was admittedly lying with the authorities of retirement and there was no suppression or misrepresentation of facts before the authorities. 5. The petitioner never misrepresented his case before the authorities nor he played any fraud either for getting time bound promotion or for getting promotional benefits. The entire service record was admittedly lying with the authorities of retirement and there was no suppression or misrepresentation of facts before the authorities. 5. In that view of the matter and also in view of catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and this court the benefit which was allowed to the petitioner cannot be recovered from him. The respondents are bound to finalise the pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by the petitioner. 6. This writ application is, therefore, disposed of with direction to the respondents to finalise the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the scale of pay last drawn by him as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.