Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1543 (JHR)

Runa Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-04

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the wrong fixation of salary in the pay scale of 5000-8000 after retirement, without any notice, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as correspondence clerk and joined the post on 23.09.1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted against sanctioned post of Head Assistant and posted in the office of Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Ranchi by the Engineer- in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner- cum- Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna vide Office No.90 contained in Memo No. 3099 (E) Patna dated 06.04.1998 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-75-7500. The post of Head Assistant was sanctioned by the Govt. of Bihar PWD vide letter No. 22784 Patna dated 20.12.1978. The petitioner worked against the sanctioned post of Head Assistant till his retirement i.e. 31.7.2007. The petitioner was throughout given the salary of Head Assistant by the Department as he was entitled for the same. However, after retirement the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced on account of objection raised by Dist. Accounts Officer. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner made representation before the concerned respondents for correction of the pay scale but all in vain and hence the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Miss. Khalida Haya Rashmi submits that no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against the petitioner during his service tenure. The petitioner worked against the sanctioned post of Head Assistant till his retirement i.e. 31.7.2007 and getting salary regularly. Miss. Rashmi assails the action of respondent in reducing the pay scale of the petitioner after his retirement without affording opportunity of hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was entitled for pay scale of 5500-9000 attached with the post of Head Assistant but the same has been reduced to pay scale of 5000-8000 on account of objection raised by the District Accounts Officer, which is not tenable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. 4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was appointed in 1970 and thereafter, his services were confirmed with effect from 1974 on the post of Correspondence Clerk and in 1976, he was given promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk and thereafter, in the year 1998 he was given promotion to the post of Head Assistant by the State of Bihar itself and from 01.01.1996, his pay scale was confirmed at Rs.5000-150-8000. Thereafter his pay scale was again revised to Rs.5500-9000. On 31.07.2017, the petitioner retired and before his retirement, he was given two benefits under ACP Scheme i.e. first in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 and secondly in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 on completion of service of 12 and 24 years respectively. As per the 6th Pay Revision, petitioners pay scale was revised from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.9300-34,800 in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- but the District Accounts Officer vide his Diary No.370 dated 03.10.2009 has objected and has stated that in the 5th pay Revision, his pay scale was Rs.5000-8000 of which the corresponding revised pay band is Rs.9300-34,800/- in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/. After verification by the District Accounts Officer, the petitioner is being paid all the retiral dues and pensionary benefits in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. The petitioner is entitled for salary in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 only and his prayer for grant of pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 is not tenable in the eyes of law. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have passed the impugned order mechanically without adhering to the principle of natural justice. The law is well settled that any order visiting with evil and civil consequences, the provision of natural justice is attracted. Without issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner and getting his reply, respondent-authorities have passed order reducing the pay scale of the petitioner for which he was entitled as per the law. After retirement without adhering to the legal provisions as enshrined in the Pension Rules, no order is sustainable in the eyes of law. Without issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner and getting his reply, respondent-authorities have passed order reducing the pay scale of the petitioner for which he was entitled as per the law. After retirement without adhering to the legal provisions as enshrined in the Pension Rules, no order is sustainable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, no legal procedures were followed before passing of the impugned order and same is in the teeth of principle of natural justice. District Accounts Officer had no authority to reduce the pay scale of the petitioner without adhering to the provisions as envisaged under the pension Rules. 7. As a sequel to the aforesaid, Rules, Guideline, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and it is quashed and set aside. Consequent upon the quashment of the impugned order, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.