Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1192 (PAT)

Ishwardhari Prasad Rai v. State of Bihar

2012-08-27

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2012
ORDER The grievance of the petitioner primarily is that the petitioner is not getting the revised pension nor the revised salary consequent to the grant of first and second time bound promotion to him. Initially when the writ petition was filed Union of India was not a party though the Accountant General had been made a party. Subsequently, the Union of India has been made party. But, unfortunately, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Union of India. Petitioner had retired on 30.04.1996. In my view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending any further. 2. There are counter affidavits by the State and the Accountant General. As the facts are not in dispute, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was originally appointed as an Instructor under the National Discipline Scheme in the Ministry of Education, Government of India. It is not in dispute and is also apparent from the State Government’s letter, as contained in Annexure-2, that in 1973 the services of the petitioner was transferred to the State Government as a National Discipline Scheme Inspector and, accordingly, the State Government posted him in the College of Arts and Crafts, Patna. He retired from service, as noted above, on 30.04.1996. The State Government then considered the matter for grant of time bound promotion to the petitioner and his like. It appears by Annexure-2, being the letter of the State Government in the Department of Art, Culture and Youth Affairs dated 28.07.2005, as contained in Annexure-2, petitioner and their like were granted the first and the second time bound promotion by the State Government. So far as the petitioner is concerned, from the order as contained in Annexure-2 itself, it is clear that he was granted the first time bound promotion with effect from 01.01.1986 and the second time bound promotion with effect from 23.09.1988. 4. Petitioner’s grievance is that though these time bound promotions were ultimately granted in the year 2005 by the State Government by when he had already retired his pay scale had to be revised. Accordingly, his pension had to be revised and the difference paid to him apart from payment of pension at the revised rates. 5. 4. Petitioner’s grievance is that though these time bound promotions were ultimately granted in the year 2005 by the State Government by when he had already retired his pay scale had to be revised. Accordingly, his pension had to be revised and the difference paid to him apart from payment of pension at the revised rates. 5. It appears from the counter affidavit of the State that the State accepting the amount due to the petitioner and for sometime having paid the same stopped the same on the objection of the Finance Department and raised the claim from the Central Government. Communications in the counter affidavit have been annexed to show that the State Government had been writing letters to the Joint Secretary, Youth and Sport Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, Government of India, New Delhi specifically demanding money for petitioner and other similarly situated National Discipline Inspectors. The stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that though petitioner is a State employee the scheme is financed by the Central Government. So long as the money is not made available to the State Government, the State is unable to give effect to the revised pay-scale and/or pension and pay the same. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Accountant General, Accountant General has accepted that there is necessity to revise the pay and the pension of the petitioner in view of the first and the second time bound promotion granted to him by the State Government. But, it is unable to do the same in absence of the service book and the last pay certificate. The Accountant General, accordingly, by its letters dated 21.07.2006 and 13.07.2012 as per instructions, asked from the District Education Officer, Patna to send the same for re-fixation of salary and revising the pension. It has yet to receive any response. So far as the Central Government is concerned, in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, petitioner was granted leave to add Union of India as a party. That was done way back in the year 2010, but there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the Union of India. 7. It has yet to receive any response. So far as the Central Government is concerned, in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, petitioner was granted leave to add Union of India as a party. That was done way back in the year 2010, but there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the Union of India. 7. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was originally a Central Government employee whose services were transferred to the State Government in the year 1973, which fact is admitted by the State Government vide Annexure-2 of the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 30.04.1996 from the services of the State Government being an Instructor under the National Discipline scheme and posted by the State Government in the College of Arts and Crafts, Patna University, Patna. It is also not in dispute that two time bound promotions were granted to the petitioner, as noted above. The consequence of the grant of two time bound promotion was that his salary up to his superannuation had to be revised and his pension also revised accordingly. Upon intimation having been received by the Accountant General, the Accountant General asked for the service book and the last pay certificate to do the needful. While nothing was done, suddenly the State Government took the stand that as the scheme is financed by the Central Government a demand was raised from the Central Government for payment of money to the petitioner and stand has been taken that so long as the Central Government does not pay the petitioner cannot be paid. 8. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, in view of the facts as noted above, there being no dispute that the petitioner was now an employee of the State Government. The privity of contract exists only between the petitioner and the State Government. From where the State Government gets the fund is not the concern of the petitioner. The stand of the State is not that every salary or every pension payment to the petitioner is made only upon receipt of the money from the Central Government. It is the difference amount that is being demanded by the Sate from the Central Government. From where the State Government gets the fund is not the concern of the petitioner. The stand of the State is not that every salary or every pension payment to the petitioner is made only upon receipt of the money from the Central Government. It is the difference amount that is being demanded by the Sate from the Central Government. Thus, the liability being of the State Government to be paid to the petitioner, I do not think that the State Government can escape that liability. As noted in the earlier orders, it is almost nearly two decades since the petitioner retired. He could be virtually on death bed and is yet to receive the fruit and the consequence of the first and second time bound promotion. In such a situation, I direct the State Government, the District Education Officer, Patna and the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna to immediately look into the matter, without throwing blame on one or the other, revise the salary of the petitioner and the pension payable as a consequence of the first and second time bound promotion. Upon the calculation being made, it shall be the responsibility of the State and the District Education Officer as well as the Accountant General, Bihar to ensure that full payment of differential of salary and pensionary benefits be made to the petitioner within four months from today. It is once again emphasized that neither of the persons mentioned above would throw the responsibility on the other. However, once amounts are quantified and paid to the petitioner, it would be upon to the State Government to raise and pursue its demand as against the Central Government. If such a demand is made and if there is obligation on behalf of the Central Government to pay the said, the Central Government would do what is just and proper and pay/reimburse the State Government for payments made in that regards. 9. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.