AKHILESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner superannuated as a Research Assistant on 30.4.2007. He was posted under respondent No. 6. After his superannuation, authorization for payment of his retiral dues etc. was forwarded to the Accountant General for fixation of his pension and other retiral dues. The office of the Accountant General, Bihar on the basis of the service book of the petitioner raised an objection that the petitioner had been wrongly given the benefit of RPP to the extent of Rs. 1,398/- which, in the opinion of the Accountant General, was an undue advantage drawn by the petitioner. They issued a communication addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, North Bihar Circle, Muzaffarpur. The said communication is Annexure-3, dated 31.10.2007. Pursuant to the said Annexure-3, the Superintending Engineer re-fixed the pay scale of the petitioner by eliminating the element of RPP and also ordering recovery. This order is Annexure-6 and dated 23.5.2008. Both Annexure-3 and Annexure-6 are under challenge in the present writ application whose quashing the petitioner is seeking.

(2.) The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that it was a wrong kind of objection raised by the Accountant General. There was occasion for protecting the pay of the petitioner after the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee effective 1.1.1996. The total emoluments, which the petitioner was drawing, was Rs. 6,298/- but the re-fixation scale, which was offered for such post as per recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee, was Rs. 3200-4900/-. Since the re-fixation had the effect of reducing the pay scale of the petitioner, RPP of Rs. 1,398/- was sanctioned in his favour. A statement 'A' enclosed in the original service book, which was directed to be produced, at page 25 certifies that position after the Court has gone through it.

(3.) In addition to that, the counsel also says that the objection raised against the petitioner is not in isolation, there were similarly placed other employees of the Department, who were dealt with in the similar fashion and they too had to approach the High Court pleading arbitrariness on the part of the said decision. One of those decision in favour of a petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-9.