Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 876 (JHR)

Md. Akbar Ali Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-14

POONAM SRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and also counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and as agreed between the parties, the writ petition is finally decided at the stage of admission. 3. The instant writ petition is preferred claiming for payment of arrears of enhanced salary due with effect from 1.8.1993 pursuant to the letter, vide Memo No. 677/Godda dated 08.06.1994 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Godda and also granting him promotion in Junior Selection Grade at the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600 (a copy of the said order is Annexure- 1 to the writ petition) as well as unutilized leave salary and the benefits of Assured Career Progression. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the recommendation of the 5th revised pay, he was entitled for the enhanced basic salary of Rs. 1400-2600 to 4500-7000. He was retired on 31.07.2002, but his pension was fixed on the last drawn salary i.e. without granting the scale of the 5th revised pay-scale. 5. Submission on behalf of the State in his counter-affidavit is that an order dated 08.06.1994 was issued with a rider that in the event there is no confirmation by the Finance Department or it is found at a latter date that the promotion is somewhat illegal or wrong, in such circumstances, the excess payment on the promoted post is liable to be recovered. 6. Needless to say that there was no such information or intimation given to the petitioner during the course of his employment on the promoted post and there is no such order of recalling his promotion during the period, he continued to serve the department. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed, but neither there is any assertion to this effect nor there is any document to support this contention. 8. It is also argued by the petitioner's counsel that till date, he was never issued any notice whatsoever and he is not aware whether the order of promotion passed in his favour has ever been recalled. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for the pension to be fixed on the revised pay-scale appears to be fully justified. 9. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for the pension to be fixed on the revised pay-scale appears to be fully justified. 9. There was no departmental proceedings initiated during the course of his employment, neither the order of promotion was alleged to be passed on misrepresentation of fraud, therefore, the petitioner cannot be subjected to such high handedness after his retirement, which he is facing at present. 10. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get his arrears at the revised pay-scale provided by 5th Pay Commission and also pension is liable to be fixed on the pay-scale as mentioned aforesaid. The petitioner is being paid his pension on the old pay-scale which is liable to be redressed at this stage. 11. In view of all these circumstances and taking into consideration that the petitioner has rendered satisfactory service all his life, he is entitled to the benefits claimed in the instant writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondents that the pay-scale of the petitioner shall be calculated and fixed on the basis of the recommendation of the 5th revised Pay Scale and arrears shall be disbursed to him forthwith. It is also directed that the pension shall be calculated at the last pay fixed (after making the calculation on the basis of the revised pay-scale) and the arrears of pension shall also be disbursed to the petitioner. The current pension shall be paid on the new scale as well. The respondent is also directed to pay to the petitioner the amount of unutilized leave salary and the benefits of the A.C.P. 12. The respondents' counsel has made a request that all these exercise of calculation might consume time, therefore, sometime may be allowed to the respondents to make calculation and also disburse the payment. 13. Pour months time is allowed. 14. The petitioner is directed to make a detailed representation along with a certified copy of this order before the concerned authorities of the respondents and in turn the concerned authorities of the respondents shall do the needful, within the prescribed period of four months. 15. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition allowed. Petition allowed.