MANOHAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the writ petitioner and is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2006 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 164 of 2003 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the writ petitioner.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was appointed constable in the police department, Government of West Bengal in 1948. He was superseded by many batchmates and his juniors such as Ashutosh Chakraborty and Sudarsan chowdhury got higher pay for anomalous fixation of pay. In order to get protection of pay and allowance under Rule 55 (4) of the West Bengal Service rules, Part I, the writ petitioner moved the Hon'ble High Court by a writ petition which was disposed of directing the respondents to revise or re-fix the pay of the writ petitioner again with effect from 1. 4. 1981 provided that the pay of the juniors in the cadre with identical revised pay scale had been fixed at a higher stage than the seniors. The pay of the writ petitioner was re-fixed accordingly with effect from 1. 4. 1981 by an order dated 4. 3. 1994 and the writ petitioner was allowed to draw the arrears on the condition that he was to give a written undertaking that he would refund the money, if drawn in excess on recommendation of the Finance Department after completion of the State gradation list. No appeal was preferred by the respondents against the said order. The writ petitioner retired from service on superannuation at the age of 58 years on 1. 11. 1996 but the respondents did not release the pensionary benefits according to the fixation made by the authorities in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. The writ petitioner then moved the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the application as a representation of the writ petitioner and to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. Pursuant to that order, the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent authorities but the directions of the learned tribunal were not complied with. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed another application before the learned Tribunal and then again the learned Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to dispose of the matter treating the application as representation of the writ petitioner by passing a speaking order. Then the S. P. , North 24 Parganas passed the reasoned order on 9. 8. 2002 wherein the prayer of the writ petitioner was rejected and the pay of the writ petitioner was re-fixed at Rs. 1,630/- with effect from 01. 02. 1996. The writ petitioner again moved before the learned Tribunal praying for retiral benefits on the basis of re-fixation of the last basic pay drawn at Rs. 1,770/- and also to set aside the order dated 9. 8. 2002 passed by the S. P. , North 24 Parganas. The learned Tribunal dismissed that application on contest. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the writ petitioner preferred this application.

(3.) MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, submitted before us that according to Rule 55 (4) of the W. B. S. R. Part-l the pay of a senior cannot be less than that of the juniors and as such the writ petitioner had to file one writ application earlier in 1993 and the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondent authority to revise the pay of the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 55 (4) of the W. B. S. R. Part-l with effect from 1st April, 1981. The s. P. , North 24 Parganas re-fixed the pay of the writ petitioner with reference to the same cadre namely one Ashutosh Chakraborty with effect from 01. 04. 1981; but ultimately when the service book of the writ petitioner was sent to the Pay implementation Cell of the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal before grant of pension to the writ petitioner, his pay was lowered down. In fact, he also contended that at that time, the service book of the writ petitioner was sent to the Pay Implementation Cell along with that of one Sudarsan chowdhury and that was the cause of all troubles in respect of fixation of pay of the writ petitioner. For that reason, discrepancy arose. He contended that the service book of Ashutosh Chakraborty should have been sent along with the service book of the writ petitioner to the Pay Implementation Cell for checking if at all required. He contended that the pay fixation of the writ petitioner had been done as per order of the Hon'ble High Court and so it could not be re-fixed by the Administrative Officer of the Government of West Bengal and so the fixation of pay as well as pensionary benefits of the writ petitioners was totally wrong. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate such fact. So the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal should be set aside and fixation of pay of the writ petitioner should be taken at Rs. 1,770/- as on 1. 2. 1996. as fixed earlier by the S. P. , North 24 Parganas. Pensionary benefits should be calculated taking his pay at Rs. 1,770/- per month at the time of retirement.