Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2320 (PAT)

Sachida Nand Sahay v. State of Bihar

2011-11-22

RAKESH KUMAR

body2011
ORDER In both the aforesaid writ petitions, similar question is involved and as such both were heard together and by common order, both the writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, have prayed for directing the respondents to fix their pension at the rate of Rs.7,150/- with effect from 1.1.1996 instead of Rs.6,000/- in view of substituted scale of Rs.14,300/- - Rs.18,300/- in the Super Time Scale. 3. Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh the petition in C.W.J.C. No.4165 of 2008 had retired on 31.12.1990 while working as Director (Seeds Certification) from Patna whereas Shri Sachidanand Sahay petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.4178 of 2008 retired on 30.11.1989 from the post of Joint Director, Adoptive Research at Patna. Both were given Super Time Scale with effect from 1.4.1989. The fact regarding grant of Super Time Scale in both the cases is not in dispute. After implementation of 4th Pay Revision, replacement scale of pay of Rs.4,100/- - Rs.5,300/- for scale of Rs.12,000/- - Rs.16,000/- in respect of Super Time Scale Grade Officer was given and accordingly, pension was fixed at Rs.6,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 in both the cases. Petitioners have claimed that on replacement, pension was required to fix at the rate of Rs.7,150/- for the scale of pay of Rs.14,300/- - Rs.18,300/-. It was argued by Shri Yugal Kishore, learned Senior Advocate that the claim, which has been raised by the petitioners has already been set at rest by a Bench of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in W.P.(S) No.6269 of 2002 (Prem Shankar Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors). It was submitted that case of petitioners is almost on similar footing of case of Prem Shankar (supra). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Annexure-4 to the writ petitions i.e. order passed by the Jharkhand High Court. It was submitted that in compliance with the order of Jharkhand High Court dated 28.2.2006, the respondent/Government of Bihar revised the pension of Prem Shankar in the scale of Rs.14,300/- - Rs.18,300/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-6 to C.W.J.C. No.4178 of 2008 i.e. an order issued by Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar vide Memo No.1497 dated 10th April,2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-6 to C.W.J.C. No.4178 of 2008 i.e. an order issued by Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar vide Memo No.1497 dated 10th April,2007. It was submitted that it is true that the said order i.e. order dated 10th April,2007 was subject to the result of S.L.P., which was preferred by Government of Bihar against L.P.A., which stood rejected wherein veracity of order of Jharkhand High Court dated 28.2.2006 in W.P.(S) No.6269 of 2002 was questioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that against the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court, an appeal vide L.P.A. No.337 of 2006 was preferred, which stood dismissed on 22.12.2006. Thereafter, the State of Bihar filed an appeal before the Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8639 of 2006, which too stood dismissed on 16.5.2006 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order of rejection of S.L.P. has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to C.W.J.C. No.4178 of 2008. 5. In view of dismissal of S.L.P. by the Supreme Court, it was submitted that order of Jharkhand High Court on the issue has already taken its finality and thereafter, the State of Bihar had no option, but to allow the prayer of the petitioners also. Since the respondent/State had not taken any notice to the claim of the petitioners, they were constrained to approach this Court by filing aforesaid writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on an order of this Court reported in 2011(3) PLJR 588 (Pushpa Sinha vs. State of Bihar) and it was submitted that once an issue is decided the respondent/State was required to grant relief to the petitioners in the light of order passed by Jharkhand High Court in Prem Shankar’s case (supra). In some and substance, it has been submitted that the aforesaid writ petitions may be allowed in terms of order of Jharkhand High Court in Prem Shankar’s case (supra). 7. Shri J.S. Arora, learned Standing Counsel No.6 had tried to distinguish the case of the petitioners from the case of Prem Shankar. It was firstly argued that against the order of the Jharkhand High Court in Prem Shankar’s case (supra), L.P.A. was preferred, but same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was firstly argued that against the order of the Jharkhand High Court in Prem Shankar’s case (supra), L.P.A. was preferred, but same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. According to Shri Arora, it is not a case of merger of order of Jharkhand High Court with the order of Apex Court due to the simple reason that Apex Court had not decided the case on merit. The appeal was dismissed without discussing any merit of the case. According to learned counsel for the State, petitioners with a view to remove stagnation were given Super Time Scale. He has referred to statement made in paragraph-9 of C.W.J.C. No.4178 of 2008. Taking aid of statement made by the petitioners, it was submitted that no benefit can be given to the petitioners in the light of order of Jharkhand High Court. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to re-produce the entire order of Jharkhand High Court in following term : “IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6269 of 2002 Prem Shankar ... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & ors.... Respondents CORAM; HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA For the Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Mazumdar, Advocate For the State of : M/S A.Allam & Bihar Nehala Sharma, Advocates For the State of : Mr.Jai Prakash, Jhakhand S.C. (Mines) 4. 28.02.2006. The petitioner, a senior citizen aged about 74 years, who retired from the services of the State on 30th June, 1989, has preferred this writ petition for a direction on the respondents to fix his pension properly. According to him, his pension should have been fixed at Rs.7,150/- in place of Rs.6,000/- with effect form 1st January,1996 and Rs.14,300-18,300/- in Super Time Scale, which was the revised scale of the original pay scale of Rs.4,100-5,300/- of the post from which he superannuated. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Notification No.3824 dated 12th April,1993, issued by the then State of Bihar under the orders of the Governor of the State. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court for grant of certain benefits, wherein, certain directions were issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Notification No.3824 dated 12th April,1993, issued by the then State of Bihar under the orders of the Governor of the State. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court for grant of certain benefits, wherein, certain directions were issued. The order of the Court not having been complied with, contempt petition being M.J.C. No.1 of 1990 was filed, wherein, certain orders were passed. In spite of such direction, the order of the High Court not having been complied with, second contempt petition being M.J.C. No.60 of 1992 was filed and only thereafter, the respondent, the then State of Bihar, issued Notification No.3824 dated 17th April,1993, allowing the petitioner the benefits of Super Time Scale of Rs.4,100-5,300/- with effect from 1st May,1989 to 30th June, 1989 with all financial benefits. It was submitted that after much persuasion and the order, passed in the contempt proceedings, though Notification No.3824 dated 17th April,1993 was issued, actual consequential monetary benefits were not given by fixing the pay of the petitioner in Super Time Scale of Rs.4,100-5,300/- (revised to Rs.14,300-18,300/-), which also resulted in wrong fixation of pension in the lower scale of pay. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar, submitted that in absence of any information, given by the concerned department of the State, the Accountant General is not in a position to fix the pay and pension of the petitioner in the revised scale. It is informed that though one Mr. Rajendra Bind, Senior Accountant has lbeen deputed and the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, was requested by letter dated 14th September,2000 to forward the details for appropriate action, no steps have been taken by the State. The 4th respondent, State of Bihar, while taking plea that the petitioner was entitled for the revised pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500/- with effect form 1st January,1996, has stated that his pension was rightly fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month. Such stand has been taken on the presumption that the Selection Grade promotion has been abolished with effect from 1st January,1996, as pleaded at paragraph no.14 to its counter affidavit. The stand, taken by the State of Bihar, can not be accepted, being not based on the facts and law. Such stand has been taken on the presumption that the Selection Grade promotion has been abolished with effect from 1st January,1996, as pleaded at paragraph no.14 to its counter affidavit. The stand, taken by the State of Bihar, can not be accepted, being not based on the facts and law. ‘Time Bound Promotion Scheme’ was framed by the State vide Finance department’s Resolution No.10770 dated 30th December,1981, which came into effect with effect from 1st April,1981. Subsequently, the scheme for grant of ‘Time Bound Promotion’ was taken away vide Resolution No.3M-2-5-VE-PU-01/99-660/(F/2) dated 8th February,1999 with a condition that a separate scheme may be framed. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was given promotion in the Super Time Scale of Rs.4,100-5,300/- with effect from 1st May,1989 vide Notification No.3824 dated 17th April,1993, issued by the then State of Bihar. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the said promotion was given by way of Time Bound promotion and thereby merged with the revision of pay, as made effective with effect form 1st January,1996. thus, the respondents cannot take away the benefits of Super Time Scale, granted to the petitioner, by mere denying the same by filing counter affidavit and, as lsuch, they are bound to fix the pension of the petitioner, taking into consideration the Super Time Scale of Rs.4,100-5,300/-, as was allowed with effect from 1st May,1989 vide Notification No.3824 dated 17th April,1993. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the case is remitted to the respondent Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna land the Accountant General, Bihar to take immediate steps for fixing the pension of the petitioner, taking into consideration the Notification of promotion i.e. Notification No.3824 dated 17th April,1993 and to pay him the arrears, on proper fixation of pay and pension, along with 5% interest with effect from May,1993 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Further, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and the harassment, meted out to him, a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) is ordered to be paid by the State of Bihar in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid period. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.” 9. Further, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and the harassment, meted out to him, a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) is ordered to be paid by the State of Bihar in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid period. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.” 9. The fact brought on record in the writ petitions makes it clear that the case of petitioners is exactly similar to the case of Prem Shankar (supra) and as such there can be no two opinions on the issue. Time without number, it has been reiterated that once an issue is decided by a court of law other similarly situated persons may not be compelled to approach the court again and again. Since the issue has already been decided by the Jharkhand High Court as indicated above, there is no option, but to allow the writ petitions in same terms. 10. Accordingly, both the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed in terms of order dated 28.2.2006 in W.P.(S) No.6269 of 2002 with a direction to take immediate steps for fixing the pension of the petitioners and pay them arrears on proper fixation of pay and pension along with interest of 5% with effect from 17.4.1993 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, the court is refraining from imposing any cost in aforesaid writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed.