ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash an order, contained in Memo No.232 dated 14.02.1998 (Annexure -14 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent/ Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. By the said order, the Joint Secretary has rejected the representation filed by the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 20.09.1997 passed in C.W.J.C.No.10207 of 1996(Annexure -12 to the writ petition). The petitioner through his representation dated 15.11.1997(Annexure -13 to the writ petition) had prayed for inclusion of three advance increments granted to him earlier at the time of his pay fixation on the post of Lower Division Assistant. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re -fix his pay on the post of Lower Division Assistant after taking into account his last salary drawn by him including the amount of three advance increments granted to him, while he was working on the post of Bill Clerk.

(2.) SHORT fact, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as Bill Clerk in the office of the Bihar State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as the ''Board '') in the Pay Scale of Rs.1300 -2240 with effect from 09.05.1986. While he was working as Bill Clerk, on the basis of advertisement he appeared in the departmental examination and was declared successful in both the papers and, as such, he was given three advance increments in view of standing order of the Board dated 22nd March, 1973. Subsequently, vide employment Advertisement No.8/89, the Board invited applications from among the staff working in the Board for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.725/ - (revised scale of Rs.1400 -2450). The petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement and he qualified in the examination and thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.1400 -2450. On selection, he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk at Patna Office of the Board with effect from 15.03.1991. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner in view of the fact that he had passed departmental examination and was granted three advance increments vide office order no.1294 dated 31.07.1992 amounting to Rs.120/ - per month with effect from 24.12.1990. The three increments were given at the rate of Rs.40/ -, which comes to Rs.120/ - per month. Accordingly, necessary sanction was accorded for payment of enhanced amount with effect from 24.12.1990 to 15.03.1991, the date on which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the Joint Secretary that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 15.03.1991 and his basic pay was Rs.1500+120 i.e. 1620/ -on the post of Bill Clerk, whereas on the post of Lower Division Clerk his aforesaid basic pay of Rs.1620/ - was reduced to Rs.1500/ - per month and the three advance increments of Rs.120/ - per month was excluded. The petitioner claimed for pay protection and fixation of his pay treating Rs.1625/ - per month as basic pay. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Again, he filed a representation before the Respondent Secretary with a request to re -consider the matter. However, vide Memo No.279 dated 08.02.1994 issued by the Joint Secretary, the petitioner was informed regarding rejection of his representation dated 07.09.1993 vide Annexure -9 to the writ petition. In the meanwhile, , as stated in the writ petition, one another employee, namely, Surendra Kumar, whose pay scale was reduced , approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No.6120 of 1994. The said writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 3rd July, 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid Judgment dated 03.07.1995 passed in C.W.J.C.No.6120 of 1994, again filed a representation on 18.01.1996 to the Joint Secretary for grant of three additional advance increments and it was prayed that the same should be included in the basic pay of the petitioner on the old post of Bill Clerk for the purpose of fixation of his pay on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Again the Joint Secretary rejected the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure -11 to the writ petition. The said rejection order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No.10207 of 1996. In view of the fact that the order of rejection of representation was non -speaking, the said order was set aside by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.9.1997 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation, which was directed to be disposed of by a reasoned order within specified time. Finally, the Joint Secretary by its order dated 14.02.1998(Annexure -14 to the writ petition) has again rejected the representation, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

(3.) SRI Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents/Bihar State Electricity Board has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He, at the very outset, submits that the case of the petitioner is not exactly similar to the case of Surendra Kumar, in whose favour writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No.6120 of 1994 was allowed. He submits that Surendra Kumar, who was granted three advance increments, was earlier in the Clerk Grade i.e. Correspondence Clerk, was granted three additional increments and, thereafter, he was promoted in the higher post of Head Clerk. After promotion , his pay was fixed taking into note the actual pay, which he was receiving in the lower post and he continued to receive salary with effect from April,1997 till the date of issuance of order dated 11th September,1993 when his pay scale was reduced and increment was excluded from the basic pay scale. In the said case, recovery order was also issued, whereas in the present case the petitioner was not simply given promotion to the higher post, but he was appointed on selection to a different cadre and, as such, the plea of the petitioner for fixing his pay scale in the light of his last pay drawn inclusive of three increments is not sustainable in the eye of law, nor the claim of the petitioner is similar to the case of Surendra Kumar. He further submits that after the order of pay fixation in the case of Surendra Kumar, the Board has come out with standing order in the year 1994. He has specifically referred to standing order no.757 dated 11.03.1994, which is Annexure -15 to the writ petition. He submits that by the standing order, the advance increment has been excluded. In any view of the matter, it has been argued that the order dated 14.02.1998 passed by the Joint Secretary (Annexure -14 to the writ petition) assigns detailed and cogent reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.