Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 426 (JHR)

Brahmadeo Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2020-03-02

S.N.PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the letter bearing No. 4/1574 dated 27.02.2017 issued by Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, the said authority has held that fixation of the pension based on average emoluments is correct and has returned all the original papers, service books to the District Education Officer, Deoghar. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of the letter bearing Memo No. Pen-4/1412 dated 23.01.2017 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner as per Resolution bearing Memo No. PC 1-01/99-15556 Vi. Pe. Dated 22.12.1999 and grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner. 3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed on 01.08.1962 as an Assistant Teacher in Mohanlal Guthotia High School, Madhupur, Deoghar. After serving in the said school for more than 38 years, he superannuated on 31.12.2000. Upon superannuation from the service, pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the existing pay-scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/- and on the basis of said fixation, his pension was revised and fixed @ Rs. 4,996/- only per month vide office order dated 28.01.2003, which is wrong calculation in view of the Government Resolution bearing Memo No. PC-1-01/99 15556, vide dated 22.12.1999, which is in existence with effective from 01.01.1996, wherein it is stated that fixation of pension shall not be less than 50 % of the maximum revised pay. Aggrieved by the same, he represented before the respondents for revising the pension. Thereafter, District Education Officer, Deoghar forwarded the grievances of the petitioner to the Accountant General Office along with his service book. But the Senior Accounts Officer vide his letter bearing Memo No. Pen-4-1412 dated 23.01.2017 has informed the District Education Officer, Deoghar that on examining the service book of the petitioner, it has come to the light that as per order dated 25.09.2001 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4696/01, petitioner’s pension, gratuity and commutation of pension have already been revised and accordingly, returned the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner being dissatisfied by the reply of the Senior Accounts Officer, again represented before the District Education Officer, Deoghar, which was forwarded vide letter dated 14.02.2017 to Accountant General, Jharkhand for redressal of the petitioner’s grievances as per the Memo No. 660 dated 08.02.1999. Subsequently, Senior Accounts officer, issued a letter dated 27.02.2017 bearing Memo No. Pen-4 (2016-17) 1574 observing therein that fixation of the pension was based on average emoluments and is correct in view of Jharkhand Pension Rules-1 and has returned all the original papers, service books to the District Education Officer, Deoghar. Aggrieved by the incorrect fixation of pension and wrong interpretation of the Circular by the respondent- Accountant General, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Sadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is entitled for the revised pay-scale as per the Circular dated 22.12.1999, which is at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Attention has been drawn to Clause 4 (iii) of the said Circular and it is submitted that petitioner is entitled for revision of pension as per Clause 4 (iii) and not as per Clause 4 (ii). He placed the Circular of the State Government and submits that the interpretation of the Office of the Accountant General is not in accordance with law and as such, same is fit to be quashed and set aside and in view of the entitlement of the petitioner as per Clause 4 (iii), a direction be given to the respondents to modify their earlier order and fix the pension of the petitioner as per Clause 4 (iii) of the said Circular dated 22.12.1999 along with consequential benefits. 5. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. V.N. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that petitioner is entitled for pension as per the Clause 4 (ii) of the said Circular and not as per Clause 4 (iii). 5. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. V.N. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that petitioner is entitled for pension as per the Clause 4 (ii) of the said Circular and not as per Clause 4 (iii). He further submits that though the grievance of the petitioner was forwarded by the office of the respondent No. 2 for taking the decision in view of Annexure-3 and 5 to the writ petition, but office of the Accountant General not revised the pension of the petitioner and reiterated that the pension fixed by this office is correct and as per Rule, and in the circumstances, the State had no option but to fix the pension of the petitioner as per the recommendation of the Accountant General. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-A/G, justifying the impugned order submits that there is nothing wrong in fixation of pension of the petitioner in view of the Clause 4 (ii) of the Circular of the State Government dated 22.12.1999 as the petitioner is not entitled for fixation of pension as per Clause 4(iii) of the said Circular. 8. In the interest of justice, Mr. Sudershan Srivastava, learned Standing counsel representing the Accountant General was asked to come for extending his assistance in the matter. Mr. Sudershan Srivastava appears before this Court and by placing the Circular dated 22.12.1999 submits that admittedly, petitioner is entitled for pension in view of Clause 4(iii) of the said Circular and not as per Clause 4 (ii). Learned counsel very fairly submits that in any view of the matter, the law is very clear that pension has to be fixed at the rate of 50 % of the last pay drawn. He further submits that from perusal of Clause 4 (ii) of the said Circular, it appears that an employee, who served for more than 33 years of service, is entitled for revised pension to the extent of 50 % of the initial pay. However, Mr. Sudershan Srivastava submits that Annexure-3 to the writ petition is not at all applicable as it talks of Fitment Committee, but there is no quarrel to the legal proposition as the same has been well settled. This Court has every praise to the learned standing counsel, representing the Accountant General to place correct proposition of law before this Court. 9. Sudershan Srivastava submits that Annexure-3 to the writ petition is not at all applicable as it talks of Fitment Committee, but there is no quarrel to the legal proposition as the same has been well settled. This Court has every praise to the learned standing counsel, representing the Accountant General to place correct proposition of law before this Court. 9. Be that as it may, having through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner worked for more than 33 years in the said Department and after his retirement on 31.12.2000, the case of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the respondent No. 2 for taking decision in view of Annexure-3 and 5 of the writ petition, but the office of the Accountant General has not considered the case of the petitioner in true perspective and fixed the pension of the petitioner in view of Clause 4 (ii) of the Circular dated 22.12.1999. The law is very much clear that pension is to be fixed at the rate of 50 % of the last pay drawn. As the petitioner has put more than 33 years of service and as such, Clause 4 (iii) of the said Circular is attracted in the instant case and the petitioner is entitled for revised fixation of his pension accordingly in view of Clause 4 (iii) of the said Circular and fixation shall be done on 50 % of the last pay drawn in the revised pay scale. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observation, rules and guidelines, impugned orders dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure-6) and 23.01.2017 (Annexure-4) are liable to be quashed and set aside and as such, same are hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the quashment of the aforesaid impugned orders, I hereby direct the respondents to revisit his own order and pass an order in accordance with law, taking into account the Circular dated 22.12.1999 specially Clause 4 (iii) of the said Circular i.e. 50 % of last pay drawn, within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. 11. Accordingly, instant writ petition stands disposed of.