ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for making payment of salary and pension treating their pay scale 5500 – 175 – 9000, as per the Resolution No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002. 2. According to the petitioner, the pay scale has been reduced by the Accountant General who is not the competent authority, and the petitioner is entitled for basic pay of Rs. 7, 600 with effect from 01.01.2006 and total Rs. 18,340 per month, as basic pay and for consequential benefits. 3. As per the pleading, the petitioner no. 1 had joined service as clerk in Mahendra Uchcha Vidyalaya, Barwapurb, within the district of Dhanbad, on 02.09.1978. 4. The petitioner had been placed in the basic Grade-1 Pay from the date of recognition of the School, vide Letter No. 1105 dated 22.07.1994. The petitioner had been granted benefit under ACP Scheme by giving the first up gradation in the pay scale of 1400 - 2300 with effect from 02.09.1988 (this appears to be factual error as at that point of time, there was no concept of ACP, rather the field was occupied by time bound promotion scheme. It is presume that the petitioner has referred to the time bound promotion although no document has been annexed.). 5. Petitioner no. 2 had joined his service under the respondents as Clerk in High School, Dhanbad on 07.08.1978 in the pay scale of 220 – 315, vide resolution no. 2260 dated 30.10.1980. The petitioner No. 2 was paid in the pay scale of 284 – 308. 6. Vide order dated 08.11.2004 passed by District Education Officer, Dhanbad, the Petitioner No. 2 was given first up gradation of pay scale under ACP Scheme with effect from 07.08.2002, accordingly he was getting the salary of Rs. 6,950/- per month. 7. Replacement pay scale has been mentioned in the writ petition but facts disclosed in the writ petition is not supported by any document and appears to be factually incorrect. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is “whether the petitioner substantially on the post of Clerk is entitled for the pay scale of the 4,000-7,000 and as per the ACP scheme he is entitled for first up gradation of pay scale in the pay scale of 5,000 – 8,000, and 2nd up gradation of pay scale 5,500 – 9,000.” 9. According to the petitioner this pay scale has been granted to the petitioner by the competent authority and subsequently has been approved by the competent authority. 10. The petitioner has retired from the service with effect from 31.01.2014 and the petitioner no. 2 retired with effect from 30.04.2014 in pay scale of 5,500 – 9,000. 11. In the pleading, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all of a sudden the Accountant General has reduced the pay scale of the petitioner which is not permissible in the law, as he is not a competent authority. 12. Counsel for the Accountant General has appeared and has disputed the basic fact that the Accountant General has never reduced the pay scale of petitioner rather on receiving the pension papers, it has been scrutinised and it has been found that wrong pay scale has been given to the petitioner. The matter has been referred to the State Government for re-submission of the pension paper after considering the pay scale of the petitioner in the light of resolution no. 1791/Finance dated 27.08.2012. 13. So far as, role of the Accountant General is concerned. The counsel for the Accountant General has referred certain provisions, Rules 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 and 201 and of Jharkhand Pension Rules 2000, are relevant, which are quoted herein-below:- “196. A non-gazetted Government servant shall submit a formal application for pension to the head of the office. 197. On receipt of the formal application, the head of the office shall immediately prepare a statement of the applicant’s services in the second page of Pension Form 4 and arrange to verify them according to the following procedure:- (a) (i) In the case of the Government servant for whom a service book is maintained, if the service has been partly inferior (regarding whose service the records of the audit offices are sometimes incomplete) all the informations procurable shall first be gathered from official records. In respect of superior service, it will be sufficient to gather, in the first place, only such information as is easily procurable. The information thus received shall then be forwarded to the Accountant-General along with the statement. The Accountant-General shall check the statement by his office records and furnish the necessary certificate of verification. In respect of superior service, it will be sufficient to gather, in the first place, only such information as is easily procurable. The information thus received shall then be forwarded to the Accountant-General along with the statement. The Accountant-General shall check the statement by his office records and furnish the necessary certificate of verification. (ii) If there is any discrepancy, the Accountant-General shall detail the nature of such discrepancy, for instance, that the post which the applicant is stated to have filled during a certain period is shown in the audit office records to have been filled by another person. The authority submitting the statement shall settle such discrepancy to the satisfication of the Accountant-General before allowing the disputable service to count for pension. (iii) If the service claimed cannot be wholly verified from the records of the audit office, reference shall be made to the head of the office in which the applicant is shown to have served during the period in doubt unless the service in question has already been verified and a certificate of verification recorded in the service book. (iv) If it be found impossible to verify the service otherwise a written statement of the applicant shall be taken on plain paper [See Indian Stamp Act II of 1889 Schedule I, no. 4]. and such collateral evidence as may be procurable shall be collected, for instance certificates such as those given by a Government servant to a subordinate on his leaving the office and the testimony of contemporary Government servants. (b) In the case of a Government servant for whom a service roll is maintained, the services, unless they have already been verified and a certificate of verification recorded on the service roll, shall be verified with reference to pay bills, acquittance rolls or other relevant records, the procedure prescribed in sub-clause(iv) of clause (a) being adopted where necessary. 198. The preparation of the service statement and the verification of service in the manner set out in the preceeding rule shall be undertaken by the head of the office as soon as it becomes known that a Government servant will retire within a period of six months or has proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement and shall not be delayed till the Government servant has actually submitted the formal application for pension. 199. 199. (a) (i) After completing the verification in the manner indicated in rule 197 the head of office shall draw up the application in Pension Form 4. (ii) He shall also follow the directions contained in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 194 and obtain the certificate referred to in the Note below rule 193 from the Government servant on a separate sheet of paper which shall be attached to the application form. (iii) In any case in which it becomes necessary to resort to the procedure prescribed in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of rule 197 he shall record on the application the exact nature of the investigation made and the conclusions arrived at. (b) He shall then arrange, with the application, all the documents relied upon for the verification of the service claimed in such manner that they can be conveniently consulted, and forward them together with the Government servant’s service book, or service roll, as the case may be, and the statement in the second page of Pension form 4 duly completed upto the date and the last pay certificate, if necessary- see rule 195 (b) through the authority empowered to sanction the pension to the Accountant-General. (c) The authority competent to sanction the pension shall follow the procedure indicated in clause (c) of rule 195. 200. (1) On receipt of the pension papers passed on to him under the provisions of rule 195 or 199, the Accountant-General shall apply the requisite checks. If in cases in which the authority competent to sanction the pension has recorded its provisional recommendation under cause (c) of rule 195 or 199, the Accountant-General finds that the claim is in order, he shall prepare the payment order forthwith but not issue it more than a fortnight in advance of the date on which the Government servant is due to retire, intimating the fact of issue to that Authority. In other cases he shall certify as to the correctness of the calculations of service and pension and return the pension papers to the authority competent to sanction the pension with a report on the claim for pension and the rules applicable to the case. In other cases he shall certify as to the correctness of the calculations of service and pension and return the pension papers to the authority competent to sanction the pension with a report on the claim for pension and the rules applicable to the case. He shall retain the last pay certificate (see rules 195 and 199) unless the pension is to be paid in another circle of audit in which case he shall forward the certificate to the Accountant-General of that circle alongwith a copy of the order sanctioning the pension. (2) In his report of the amount of pension admissible the Accountant-General shall always call special attention to rules 139 and 202 (1). 201. (1) A pension which is certified by the Accountant-General to be clearly and strictly admissible under the rules shall be sanctioned- (a) in any case, by the Provincial Government; (b) in the case of non-gazetted Government servants, by the Government servant who has the authority to fill the appointment vacated by the retiring Government servant. (2) The sanctioning authority has special responsibility of ensuring that orders sanctioning the pension are sent to the Accountant-General in time enough to enable him to issue the pension payment order not later than the date on which the Government servant is due to retire. Order sanctioning the pension may issue not more than one month in advance of the due date of retirement, and the Accountant-General may issue the pension payment order not more than a fortnight in advance thereof.” 14. Referring to the above rules, it has been submitted by the counsel for the Accountant General that he has been assigned defined role to be played while finalising the pension and gratuity. 15. The authorities are supposed to fill up the pension form and to submit before the Accountant General and he in turn has to scrutinise the entitlement of the pensioner regarding the quantum of pension vis-a-vis applicable rules. 16. Counsel for the Accountant General has further relied upon the Paras-8 and 9 of the counter affidavit dated 01.02.2019, which are quoted herein-below:- “8. That in the instance case, the department has forwarded the sanction order enclosing the relevant documents and Service Book of the petitioner vide letter No. 272 dated 05.02.2014 to the office of the answering respondent for finalization of Pension and gratuity in favor of the petitioner. That in the instance case, the department has forwarded the sanction order enclosing the relevant documents and Service Book of the petitioner vide letter No. 272 dated 05.02.2014 to the office of the answering respondent for finalization of Pension and gratuity in favor of the petitioner. On receipt of the sanction order and relevant documents requisite checks were done and it was found that pay fixation of the petitioner was not as per the Circular issued by Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand bearing No. 1791 dated 27.08.2012. 9. That thus the office of the answering respondent by its letter No. Pen-4-1716 dated 27-03-2014 returned the relevant documents and the service Book in original to the District Education Officer, Dhanbad with a request to resubmit the same after removing the discrepancies. A copy of this letter was also endorsed to the petitioner for information.” 17. Referring the above statement made in counter affidavit and rules, it has been submitted by the counsel for the Accountant General that the Accountant General has played his role assigned under the rules. On receiving pension paper of the petitioners, on scrutiny it has been found that the petitioner has wrongly been given pay scale of 5,500 – 9,000, while he is entitled of pay scale 5,000 – 8,000 only, and as such the matter has been referred back to the authorities for re-consideration. 18. Counsel for the Respondent-Accountant General has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 1877 para-21, which is quoted herein-below:- “21. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of G.O. number of persons are granted pensionary benefits even though they have not completed 20 years of service, and, therefore, at this stage, Court should not interfere and see that the pensionary benefits granted to the respondents are not disturbed and are released as early as possible. In our view, for grant of pension the member of BSF are governed by CCS (Peinsion) Rules. CCS (Pension) Rules nowhere provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 year of service as provided in Rule 48-A is entitled to pensionary benefits. Rule 19 of the BSF Rules also does not make any provision for grant of pensionary benefits. CCS (Pension) Rules nowhere provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 year of service as provided in Rule 48-A is entitled to pensionary benefits. Rule 19 of the BSF Rules also does not make any provision for grant of pensionary benefits. It only provides that if a member of the force who resigns and to whom permission in writing is granted to resign then the authority granting such permission may reduce the pensionary benfits if he is eligible to get the pension. Therefore, by erroneous interpretation of the rules if pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistake should be perpetuated by direction of the Court. It would be unjustifiable to submit that by appropriate writ, the Court should direct something which is contrary to the statutory rules. In such cases, there is no question of application of Article 14 of the Constitution. No person can claim any right on the basis of decision which is de hors the statutory rules nor there any estoppel. Further, in such cases there cannot be any consideration on the ground of hardship. If rules are not providing for grant of pensionary benefits it is for the authorities to decide and frame appropriate rules but Court cannot direct payment of pension on the ground of so-called hardship likely to be caused to a person who has resigned without completing qualifying service for getting pensionary benefits. As a normal rule, pensionary benefits are granted to a Government servant who is required to retire on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement except in those cases where there are special provisions.” 19. The Authorities after reconsideration has passed an order reducing the pay scale of the petitioner. No order of reduction has been passed by the Accountant General. There is a factual error in the pleading of the petitioner. 20. Counsel for the State on the other hand has relied upon the Clause 2 (iii) of the ACP Scheme dated 14. 08.2002. The Authorities after reconsideration has passed an order reducing the pay scale of the petitioner. No order of reduction has been passed by the Accountant General. There is a factual error in the pleading of the petitioner. 20. Counsel for the State on the other hand has relied upon the Clause 2 (iii) of the ACP Scheme dated 14. 08.2002. The clause 2(iii) is quoted herein-below:- ^^;g foRrh; mUu;u lacaf/kr lsod dks mlds lEoxZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr ÁksUufr ds oRrZeku in lksiku ds osrueku esa feysxk vkSj blds fy, foRr foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k&660@foŒ ¼2½] fnukad 8-2-1999 ,oa bl Øe esa fuxZr vU; vkns'kksa }kjk Lohd`r osrueku gh Álkafxd gksaxsA tgka ÁksUufr ds in lksiku fu/kkZfjr ugha gSa ;k in lksiku esa nks ls de ÁksUufr ds in d.kkZfdr gS] ogka vuqlkj mPprj osruekuksa esa foRrh; mUu;u dk ykHk fn;k tk,xkA** 21. Relevant portion of clerificatory letter dated 27.08.2012 issued by Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. ^^fd foRr foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k 5207@foŒ fnukad 14-08-2002 dh dafMdk 2¼3½ esa Áko/kfur gS fd tgka ÁksUufr ds in lksiku esa nks ls de ÁksUufr ds in d.kkZfdr gS ogka vuqlwph&1 ds vuqlkj mPprj osrueku esa foRrh; mUu;u dk ykHk fn;k tk;sxkA bl Áko/kku ds vkyksd esa {ks=h;@eqQfLly dk;kZy; ¼lekgj.kky; dks NksM+dj½ ds fyfid dks ÁFke ,ŒlhŒihŒ osrueku :i;s 4500&7000 rFkk f}rh; ,ŒlhŒihŒ osrueku :i;s 5000&8000 vuqekU; gSA** 22. Referring to above clause, it has been submitted that when there is a only one promotional avenues then the petitioner is entitled for up-gradation of pay scale as per schedule not as per the promotional post. 23. In the present case, since only one promotional avenues is available and as such petitioner is entitled for up-gradation of pay scale as per schedule, and as per schedule the petitioner is entitled for up gradation of first pay scale in 4,500 – 7,000 and the second in 5,000 – 8,000. 24. There was some confusion in the minds of the authorities who were authorised to give up-gradation of pay scale under the scheme has sought clarification and upon that it has been clarified by the Finance Department through its letter dated 27.08.2012 (Supra). 25. It has been clarified that if there is only one promotional avenues is available then the incumbent will be entitled for up-gradation of pay scale as per the schedule not as per the promotional post. 26. 25. It has been clarified that if there is only one promotional avenues is available then the incumbent will be entitled for up-gradation of pay scale as per the schedule not as per the promotional post. 26. On the strength of above reasoning, it has been submitted that the petitioner has wrongly been given up-gradation of pay scale rather it has been granted contrary to the scheme itself. 27. Accordingly, it has been corrected 28. Heard counsels for the parties. 29. It is an admitted position that the substantive post of petitioner is Clerk and the pay scale assigned to the Clerk is 4,000 – 6,000. The petitioner is entitled for up-gradation of pay scale but it has to be as per the scheme itself. 30. Scheme clearly stipulates if there is only one promotional avenues then the up-gradation will be as per the schedule. 31. Admittedly, in the present case in the cadre of petitioner only one promotional post is available as of Head Clerk in the pay scale of 5,500 – 9,000. The petitioner is entitled for first up-gradation of pay scale in the pay scale of 4,500 – 7,000. Second in pay scale of 5,000 - 8,000 as per the schedule. 32. Only in the case of regular promotion he is entitled for the pay scale of 5,500 – 9,000. 33. Admittedly, in the present case petitioner has not been given regular promotion. He has retired from the substantive post of clerk and as such the pay scale has rightly been corrected by the authorities. 34. In the present case, there is no order of recovery of amounts and only the correction has been made for the purpose of calculating quantum of pension and gratuity, the authorities are entitled to re-visit as per the rules discussed above. 35. In view of the above discussion, this courts finds no merit in the present writ petition. 36. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.