Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 878 (PAT)

Nagendra Prasad Lal v. Union Of India

2004-08-27

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioner in the light of circular dated 8th of May, 1997 with effect from 1.2.1992 till his superannuation. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to grant him the selection grade with effect from 1.12.1987. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was a Category III employee of the Food Corporation of India and retired from service as an Assistant Grade-ll on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th of November, 1992. At the time of superannuation he was Category III employee of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The Corporation effected the revision of pay scale of its category III and IV employees by circular 6 of 1997 dated 8.5.1997 (Annexure-1) and said revision was to take effect from 1st February, 1992. Clause 15 of the aforesaid circular, inter alia, provided for grant of benefit to such employee who had superannuated from service. In the light of the aforesaid order the District Manager of Patna sent pay fixation proposal of the petitioner to the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the benefit of the pay revision has not been given to him. 3. Petitioners assertion further is that by the office order dated 16.8.1994 (Annexure-8) he was directed to be given the benefit of selection grade with effect from 1.12.1987 but the said benefit has also not been given to him. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the stand of the respondent-Corporation is that petitioner has not been given the benefit of pay fixation on the ground of pendency of criminal case. 5. As regards the grievance of the petitioner in regard to the selection grade it has been stated that while passing the aforesaid order it was made clear that before the said benefit is given, the authority shall ensure that no vigilance case is either pending and/or contemplated against such employees and they are not undergoing any penalty. 6. 5. As regards the grievance of the petitioner in regard to the selection grade it has been stated that while passing the aforesaid order it was made clear that before the said benefit is given, the authority shall ensure that no vigilance case is either pending and/or contemplated against such employees and they are not undergoing any penalty. 6. It is not in dispute that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1978 which culminated into his conviction in the year 1995 where as the stand of the petitioner is that he was granted selection grade with effect from 1.12.1987. 7. Mr. V.K. Verma appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that revision of pay with effect from 1.2.1992 cannot be denied on the ground of pendency of criminal case and the respondents having admitted that benefit of pay fixation has not been given to the petitioner on that ground, this action has to be held to be illegal and consequently the writ in the nature of mandamus deserves to be issued for grant of that benefit. 8. Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that as a criminal case was pending against the petitioner, he was not given revision of pay. 9. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Verma. By circular No. 6 of 1997 pay scales of category III and IV employees of the Corporation have been revised with effect from 1.2.1992. Said circular itself provided revision of pay scale of such employees who had retired after 1.2.1992. As the said revision was made effective w.e.f. 1.2.1992, in my opinion, the revision of scale cannot be denied on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case. In my opinion, respondents erred in denying the revision of pay scale to the petitioner on that ground. 10. Mr. Verma then contends that once the order dated 16.8.1994 having been passed by the Corporation for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 1.12.1987, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit thereof. 11. Mr. Tekriwal, however, submits that while issuing said order, it was made clear that the persons against whom the cases are pending, shall not be entitled for the said benefit and hence the petitioner was rightly not given the said benefit. 12. 11. Mr. Tekriwal, however, submits that while issuing said order, it was made clear that the persons against whom the cases are pending, shall not be entitled for the said benefit and hence the petitioner was rightly not given the said benefit. 12. Having considered the rival contention, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Tekriwal. lt is not in dispute that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1978 which culminated into his conviction in the year 1995 and the date from which the selection grade was granted is 1.12.1987. Hence the date on which selection was granted, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner, hence, in terms of the order itself, the benefit thereof was not available to him. l do not find any merit in this grievance of the petitioner. 13. In the result, this writ application is partly allowed. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to give benefit to the petitioner the revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.2.1992 within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.