Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 149 (JHR)

Ram Deo Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-01-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of an order contained at Annexure-14 dated 15th February, 2001, issued by the Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar, whereby he has refused to grant the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- pursuant to 5th Pay Revision Committee Recommendation. 3. The petitioner on the basis of an order dated 18th September, 2000 passed in CWJC No. 3333 of 1998(R), preferred for the same relief had made a representation before the Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises, who was directed to consider and decide on his representation by the said order. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Chief Security Officer since his appointment on 22nd August, 1975 in the pay scale of Rs.500-1155/-. The said scale was revised in the pay scale of Rs.1000-1820/- w.e.f. 1st of April, 1981 on the basis of 4th Pay Revision Committee recommendation has also been implemented for B.S.M.D.C employees. The petitioner was granted 1st Time Bound promotion after 10 years in the next higher pay scale of Rs.1350-2000/- w.e.f. 22nd August, 1985. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Corporation contained in Agenda Item no. 1/8 in its meeting dated 26th August, 1972, to submit that employees of the Corporation are entitled to such allowances and service benefits as are admissible to the employees of the Government of Bihar pending finalization of the own service condition by the Company to its employees. Pursuant to aforesaid decision, Pay Revision Committee Recommendations have been implemented in the Corporation and accordingly 5th Pay Revision Committee recommendations were also recommended. According to the petitioner, the revised scale of Rs.3000-4500/- was admissible to the pre-revised scale of Rs.1350-2000/- which the petitioner was getting on the basis of his Time Bound Promotion. The said scale was also admissible to the Senior Mining Engineer/Mines Engineer, who were also in the same scale, however, the petitioner was aggrieved as his scale have been revised to Rs.2400-4150/-. It is submitted that on representation being made by the petitioner against the said pay anomaly the Corporation as well as Controlling Department also made recommendation to the High Level Committee for removal of anomaly recommending the revised pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- vide Annexure-4. It is submitted that on representation being made by the petitioner against the said pay anomaly the Corporation as well as Controlling Department also made recommendation to the High Level Committee for removal of anomaly recommending the revised pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- vide Annexure-4. It was followed up by another letter dated 9th February,1999 vide Annexure-5 addressed to the Secretary, Bureau of Public Enterprises. It is further submitted that similar cases of pay revisions were also considered in respect of persons working as Assistant Director, District Mining Officer, Drilling Engineer in Mines and Geology Department, who were granted revised pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- in stead of 2400-4150/- and has been implemented by the Corporation vide Annexure-6. Since the petitioner's case was not being considered in proper scale which would have entitled him to a higher scale under the 6th Pay Revision Committee in the scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- in stead of Rs.8000-13,500/-., the petitioner left with no option approached this Court in the earlier writ petition as referred to hereinabove wherein an order was passed directing the Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises to consider the representation of the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed to give details relating to the recommendations made by the Corporation-State. Thereafter the impugned order has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 15th February, 2001 vide Annexure-14. Two grounds on which such claim has been refused are (a) that the grant of 1st Time Bound Promotion in the scale of Rs.1350-2000/- given to the petitioner was done before taking approval from Bureau of Public Enterprises (b) The Corporation while giving additional responsibilities of Vigilance Officer to the petitioner, apart from his original post of Chief Security Officer, did not seek approval from the Bureau of Enterprises. On these grounds though the petitioner was having a scale of Rs.1350-2000/- his claim for scale of Rs.3000-4500/- as were paid to personnel of the Mining Discipline were refused by holding that the petitioner's basic pay is Rs.1000-1820/-. 6. On these grounds though the petitioner was having a scale of Rs.1350-2000/- his claim for scale of Rs.3000-4500/- as were paid to personnel of the Mining Discipline were refused by holding that the petitioner's basic pay is Rs.1000-1820/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore challenged the impugned order on the ground that contrary to the recommendations of the Corporation as well as Controlling Department, Bureau of Public Enterprises has taken an erroneous view by refusing the higher pay scale, although the petitioner was not at fault for the latches of Corporation or Bureau of Public Enterprises in not granting approval of 1st Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner as also the additional charge of Vigilance Officer conferred upon him, apart from his original duty. It is further stated that as a matter of fact pursuant to the grant of 1st Time Bond Promotion the petitioner was working in the same scale of Rs.1350-2000/-, corresponding scale, to which would have been Rs.3000-4500/- which has been denied in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a communication contained in Memo No. 8294/B dated 26th December, 1985, addressed to all Heads of Department as also the Secretary to different departments that on completion of the minimum period as required under the circular of 30th December, 1981, eligible persons should be considered and granted time bound promotion which may, however, be subject to approval by Controlling Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the recommendation dated 25th July, 1989 (Annexure-16), which is a letter seeking approval of the grant of 1st Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner in the scale of Rs.1350-2000/-. 7. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. On the one hand, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not disputed this fact that recommendations were made in favour of the petitioner by the Controlling Department. But on the other hand, it has been stated that information, which was sought for from the B.S.M.D.C for taking a decision by the High Level Committee of Bureau of Public Enterprises were not received. The respondent no. 1 to 3 have not disputed this fact that recommendations were made in favour of the petitioner by the Controlling Department. But on the other hand, it has been stated that information, which was sought for from the B.S.M.D.C for taking a decision by the High Level Committee of Bureau of Public Enterprises were not received. The respondent no. 4 in its affidavit has stated that the petitioner was in the scale of Rs.1350-2000/- which was also the scale of Senior Mining Engineers, who were given the revised scale of Rs.3000-4500/-, but the petitioner's pay scales have been revised by the State High Level Committee to Rs.2400-4150/-. The recommendations were made in favour of the petitioner and the Administrative Department of Mines and Geology also agreed with the recommendations made by the Respondents-Corporation communicated vide letter dated 4th February, 1997 and 9th February,1999 (Annexures-4 and 5) to the writ application. However, the same has been rejected by Bureau of Public Enterprises by the impugned order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and cautiously gone through the relevant materials on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner by virtue of an order passed by the Respondents-Corporation was placed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1350-2000/-, for which approval was also sought by the Respondents-Corporation vide Annexure-16 dated 25th July, 1989 addressed to the Bureau of Public Enterprises. Further the Corporation as well as Administrative Department of Mines and Geology had made favourable recommendation for grant of revised scale of Rs.3000-4500/- in favour of the petitioner keeping into regard that on the one hand he was working in pre-revised scale of Rs.1350-2000/- and on the other hand, the personnel from the Mining Discipline working on the said scale, were also granted the revised scale of Rs.3000-4500/-. The Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises, in the impugned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that approval for grant of such higher scale was not done by the Bureau of Public Enterprises upon grant of 1st Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner obviously was not at fault and it appears that despite approval being sought by the Corporation as long back as in the year 1989 vide Annexure-16, it was the Bureau of Public Enterprises which failed to provide necessary approval for the same in time. The petitioner obviously was not at fault and it appears that despite approval being sought by the Corporation as long back as in the year 1989 vide Annexure-16, it was the Bureau of Public Enterprises which failed to provide necessary approval for the same in time. The petitioner has been made to suffer for lack of necessary approval at the end of Bureau of Public Enterprises itself, for which it is not at fault. 9. Since conversion scale in the revised pay scale under 5th Pay Revision Committee recommendation from 1350-2000/- were also granted to Mining Personnel in the revised scale of Rs. 3000-4500/-, there are no valid reason why the petitioner should have been discriminated in grant of the said revised scale as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay revision Committee, which was being implemented at the relevant point of time. In that view of the matter, the impugned order suffers from errors of law as well as of fact and appears to be passed in an arbitrary manner without taking into account the fact that the petitioner was never at fault and he had been serving in the pre-revised scale of 1350-2000/- on the basis of Time Bound Promotion duly granted by the Corporation itself. The impugned order rejecting his claim, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and it is accordingly set aside. On the basis of the facts and reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, it is therefore directed that the petitioner should be granted the revised scale of Rs.3000-4500/- under the 5th Pay Revision Committee Recommendation and subsequently the revised scale pursuant to the successive Pay Revision Recommendation implemented in the Corporation thereafter. It is informed that the petitioner has since retired during the pendency of the writ application. In that view of the matter, the Respondents-Corporation is directed to take steps to grant the arrears of the revised scale to the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. He should also be granted consequential benefits on such revision in the post retirement benefits as well. 10. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed in the aforesaid term.