STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAGHUBANSH PRASAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Letters Patent Appeal filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its concerned officials the only question involved is whether by notification dated 2nd April, 1979 (Annexure -2) the writ petitioner -respondent was granted substantive appointment to the post of Food Inspector and, therefore, entitled to salary and other emoluments from the date of notification till his superannuation and thereafter, to retiral benefits on that basis or whether by Annexure -2 the Governor of Bihar merely vested the power of Food Inspector in the sole respondent for the limited purpose of performing the duties of Food Inspector within the local limits notified by the notification in addition to his duties of Sanitary Inspector?

(2.) IT appears that sometime before his retirement on 31.1.1997, the writ petitioner -respondent filed a writ application bearing CWJC No. 6221 of 1996 for payment of salary for holding the post of Food Inspector as he performed the duty of such post from 2.4.1979 to 31.1.1997. In that case an unnecessary issue was raised at the instance of State of Bihar and its officials regarding genuineness of notification dated 2.4.1979 and in that background the writ application was disposed of on 27.6.1997 in following terms: Having heard the counsel for the parties, in view of the disputed question of fact as to whether the notification dated 2.4.79 is genuine or not, this court is not in a position to give any positive direction to the respondents. However, the respondent Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Health Department is directed to look its own file to find out as to whether the notification no. 1275(14) dated 2.4.79 is genuine or not. If it is found that such notification is on the record (file) and/or it was published in the gazette, in that case, the respondents will decide as to whether the petitioner was made incharge of the post of Food Inspector and/or was made a regular Food Inspector. If it is found that the notification is forged, then the petitioner is to be commuinicated with such order and in that case, the petitioner will not receive any amount. On the other hand, if the notification dated 2.4.79 is said to be correct, then in that case, the respondents will pay the admitted arrears of salary, if any, in favour of the petitioner. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is found to have been posted as incharge Food Inspector, then in that case, his case is to be considered in terms with rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code. A decision is to be taken in one or other way within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforementioned observations/directions."

(3.) NOW , the genuineness of the notification dated 2.4.1979 is not in dispute and the only question, as mentioned earlier, is whether the said notification provided for appointment of petitioner as a regular Food Inspector. Admittedly, a post carrying higher pay -scale or whether it vested him with additional powers of Food Inspector as a temporary measures.