RAJ KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service on 12.3.1984. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge, and then, to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as the A.D.J. for short) on 1.11.2003. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2012. Almost on the verge of retirement, he realized that he was drawing less scale of pay than his immediate juniors, by name Manmohan Choudhary and Ajit Kumar Sinha, who were promoted to the post of A.D.J. on 13.2.2004 and 17.2.2004 respectively. He made representation in this behalf and, since there was no reply to that, he filed the present writ petition. He contends that once his juniors are placed in the pay scale of Rs.17,550.00, there was no basis for the respondents to place him in the pay -scale of Rs.17,150.00 in the year 2004.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. They did not dispute the dates of promotion of the petitioner, on the one hand, and his two junior, on the other hand. However, the justification pleaded for the anomaly in the pay -scale is that the petitioner did not exercise the option as provided for in F.R.22(I)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. They contend that the petitioner, as well as the two officers named above, became eligible for increment in the post of A.D.J. in January, 2004, and since the promotion of the petitioner took place before that date, his pay -scale in the post of A.D.J. was fixed without the increment, whereas for other two officers, the increments were taken into account since they were promoted, after they earned increment. An objection is also raised as to the delay and laches in filing of the writ petition.

(3.) HEARD Shri Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Rajeev Ranjan Kumar Pandey and others, learned counsel for the respondents.