Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 874 (JHR)

Ram Naumi Prasad v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2005-12-20

M.Y.EQBAL, N.DHINAKAR

body2005
Order By the Court.-Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant writ petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 12.8.1985 to 6.12.1992 for the post of Junior Electrical Engineer and the benefits of selection grade and to maintain his seniority. 3. According to the petitioner-appellant, he was appointed as an operator and was later treated to have been appointed to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer in the scale of Rs. 1800-3500 with effect from 12.8.1985 on notional basis. It is further averred that since in the notification dated 28.12.1992 nothing was mentioned regarding the benefit of wages or monetary benefits in lieu of difference between the scale of operator and that of Junior Electrical Engineer, the petitioner-appellant represented before respondent No.4, Joint Secretary, BSEB, Patna [in the writ petition]. The claim of monetary benefits i.e. the difference of wages of the two posts made by the petitioner was disposed of by letter dated 28.6.1995. The petitioner challenged the said decision of the respondents in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge refused to give any direction, as prayed for, by relying upon the judgments of the Patna High Court as also the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Rajinder Singh Rawat, reported in 1999(9) SCC 173 by his order dated 16.4.2004. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that because of the mistake committed by respondent No.1, the petitioner-appellant could not be given the difference of salary of the two posts. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The direction issued by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid decision which has been quoted in paragraph 6 of the order of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Supreme Court on which the learned Single Judge relied upon, clearly shows that the petitioner appellant is not entitled to any backwages as he did not assume the charge of the post of Junior Electrical Engineer for the period he has claimed wages and thus no relief could be granted to him in the writ petition. 5. We find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.