Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1132 (PAT)

Sri Rabindra Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-12

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner superannuated on 31.1.1996 while working on the post of Senior Sub-divisional Audit Officer from the Co-operative Department, Govt, of Bihar. At the lime of his retirement he was in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3800/-. which was the replacement scale given to him with effeci from 1.4.1986 on revision of pay. His grievance is that subsequent to his retirement, the State Government by its resolution dated 8.2.1999 resolved for revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996. In view of this resolution, the petitioner is entitled to pay revision and consequential revision of his retiral benefits as may be applicable consequent thereto. In support of his pay scale, petitioner has annexed as a part of Annexure 1. His pay fixation order consequent to the pay revision of the year 1986, which was done in 1994, which clearly mentions this fact that the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3800/-with effect from 1.4.1986. It appears that the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued in the celebrated decision of Rukmani filed a contempt application bo- fore this court. In the contempt application the respondent-State accepted that the petitioner retired in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3800/-. It is also not disputed that in the pay revision resolution of the State Government of the year 1999 the District Audit Officer, Co-operative Department was in the said pay scale of the replacement scale was Rs. 6500/-to Rs. 10500/- but this was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he was not District Audit Officer but he was merely Sub-divisional Audit Officer. Being Sub-divisional Audit Officer pay scale would be Rs. 1700/- to Rs. 2700/- whose replacement scale would be Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 8000/- and it is that amount that was admissible. The petitioner asserts that even that amount has not been paid to the petitioner. Petitioner states that admittedly as appeared, the pay fixation done and as admitted in the show cause of the State he retired in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/-to Rs. 3800/-. If that be so then he cannot be denied that the replacement scale thereof would be Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10500/-. This cannot be denied to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner states that admittedly as appeared, the pay fixation done and as admitted in the show cause of the State he retired in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/-to Rs. 3800/-. If that be so then he cannot be denied that the replacement scale thereof would be Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10500/-. This cannot be denied to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General fairly states that if it goes uncontroverted as it has happened in the case that the petitioner retired on 31.1.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/-to Rs. 3800/- then his replacement scale would be Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10500/-. This exactly what the petitioner has been demanding right from beginning and it is being denied by the State. 4. Having considered the matter, it is clear that by pay revision what has been substituted is the scale of pay which an employee is getting earlier. Here it is not in dispute that the petitioner was earlier in the pay scale of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3800/-. If that be so, then the replacement scale would be Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10500/-. This matter now stands concluded by the resolution of the State Government taken in the year 2006 effective from 1.1.1996 as contained in Annexure 6 to the rejoinder filed byrthe petitioner to the counter affidavit of the State wherein it has been clearly specified that the replacement Pay scale of Senior Sub-divisional Audit Officer, Co-operative Department would be Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 10500/- In my view the controversy thus resolved. 5. Accordingly, I have no option but to allow this application and direct the authority to re-compute the salary payable to the petitioner for the month of January, 1996 and other retiral benefits in accordance with replacement pay scale, as referred to above, and applicable to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. This application is accordingly allowed.