Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 566 (PAT)

Nitya Nand Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-04-04

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the Accountant General. 2. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Clerk in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Munger with effect from 31.1.1990. He filed this writ petition on 26.4.2006 i.e. after about 16 years of his superannuation praying, inter alia, to direct the State-respondents to grant him Super Time Scale as three of his junior colleagues named in Paragraph-12 of the writ petition have been granted such scale under order bearing Memo No. 2181-87 dated 17.5.1994, Annexure-6. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner this Court having noticed the fact that petitioner has filed this writ petition after about 16 years of his superannuation was about to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches then counsel for the petitioner submitted that prayer of the petitioner for grant of Super Time Scale was kept pending and has been recently rejected under Letter No. 604 dated 26.6.2010 by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Munger Division, Munger, this Court may not invoke the doctrine of laches against the petitioner. 4. Appreciating such submission this Court entertained the submission and went through the order bearing Letter No. 604 dated 26.6.2010, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, whereunder request of the petitioner for grant of Super Time Scale has been rejected observing that as he could not earn Junior, Senior Selection Grade pursuant to 4th Pay Revision Recommendation as per sub-paragraph (i), (ii), (iii) of Paragraph 10 of the resolution of the Finance Department bearing no. 10770 dated 30th December, 1981, petitioner being not within 30% of the cadre strength was not allowed Junior, Senior Selection Grade, he cannot be allowed Super Time Scale. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that petitioner was granted first time bound promotion on completion of 10 years of service and second time bound promotion on completion of 25 years of service which is equivalent to grant of Junior, Senior Selection Grade, as such, he is entitled for grant of Super Time Scale. 6. 6. Counsel for the State opposed the contention by submitting that Junior, Senior Selection Grade in terms of 4th Pay Revision recommendation is allowed to those members of the service who are within 30% of the cadre strength and members beyond 30% of the cadre strength are allowed first, second time bound promotion on completion of 10, 25 years of service and as petitioner was beyond the 30% of the cadre strength he was allowed time bound promotion on completion of 10, 25 years, he is not entitled for grant of Super Time Scale. 7. I see substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State in view of the clear mandate of sub-paragraph (iii) of Paragraph 10 of the resolution dated 30th December, 1981 which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “The Junior Selection Grade should consist of 20 percent of the total cadre and the Senior Selection Grade, 10 percent of the total cadre. The actual number should be determined for particular cadres taking into account the normal promotion prospects already existing for the cadre so that the first and second levels of promotion inclusive of the Selection Grade remains at least 20 percent and 10 percent respectively. In case of the State Services, however, the percentage of junior and senior selection grade should be 20 per cent and 12.5 percent respectively and, for the suppertime scale, 2.5 percent.” 8. Petitioner being not within 30% of the cadre strength could not earn Junior, Senior Selection Grade, as such, in my opinion, is not entitled to Super Time Scale. The prayer made in the writ petition is rejected. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.