ISHWARDHARI PRASAD RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner primarily is that the petitioner is not getting the revised pension nor the revised salary consequent to the grant of first and second time bound promotion to him. Initially when the writ petition was filed Union of India was not a party though the Accountant General had been made a party. Subsequently, the Union of India has been made party. But, unfortunately, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Union of India. Petitioner had retired on 30.04.1996. In my view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending any further.

(2.) There are counter affidavits by the State and the Accountant General. As the facts are not in dispute, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this, stage itself.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was originally appointed as an Instructor under the National Discipline Scheme in the Ministry of Education, Government of India. It is not in dispute and is also apparent from the State Government's letter, as contained in Annexure-2, that in 1973 the services of the petitioner was transferred to the State Government as a National Discipline Scheme Inspector and, accordingly, the State Government pasted him in the College of Arts and Crafts, Patna. He retired from service, as noted above, on 30.04.1996. The State Government then considered the matter for grant of time bound promotion to the petitioner and his like. It appears by Annexure-2, being the letter of the State Government in the Department of Art, Culture and Youth Affairs dated 28.07.2005, as contained in Annexure-2, petitioner and their like were granted the first and the second time bound promotion by the State Government. So far as the petitioner is concerned, from the order as contained in Annexure-2 itself, it is clear that he was granted the first time bound promotion with effect from 01.01.1986 and the second time bound promotion with effect from 23.09.1988.