Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 165 (PAT)

Bholeshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2005-02-15

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. A grievance has been made by the petitioner against the order as contained in Annexure 8 whereby and whereunder his representation for payment of revised scale pursuant to 5th Pay Revision Committee report has been rejected. 3. it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefits of 5th Pay Revision Committee report was made effective with effect from 1.1.1986 and since the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.1.1987, he was entitled to get the benefits of 5th Pay Revision but the authorities without examining the claim of the petitioner in correct perspective of the case, rejected his representation solely on the ground that in view of Finance Departments resolution no. 660 dated 8.2.1999 the benefit of pay revision was not been extended to the persons for getting senior selection grade scale in the Forest Department. The said resolution of the Finance Department has been annexed with the counter affidavit and marked as Annexure A. When I asked Junior counsel to S.C. 4 to explain as to whether the resolution of the Finance Department debars the officials of Forest Department to get the benefit of 5th Pay Revision Committee report, learned counsel said that it has not been specified only so far Forest Department officials are concerned but it has been made applicable to all employees of the State Government. 4. Prima facie, it appears that 5th Pay Revision Committee report was made effective with effect from 1.1.1986 and since the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.1.1987, ordinarily he would be entitled to get revised scale and in no way, the resolution of the Finance Department dated 8.2.1999 as referred to above, will affect the right of the petitioner. Prima facie, thus, it appears that on wrong construction of the resolution of the Finance Department dated 8.2.1999 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected summarily. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, order impugned as contained in Annexure 8 is not sustainable in law. 6. In the result, this application is allowed. Prima facie, thus, it appears that on wrong construction of the resolution of the Finance Department dated 8.2.1999 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected summarily. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, order impugned as contained in Annexure 8 is not sustainable in law. 6. In the result, this application is allowed. Order as contained in Annexure 8 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for the benefits of 5th Pay Revision Committee report and pass necessary order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.