ASHOK PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Mechanic Grade I on 26th March, 1987 when he was accorded the pay scale of Rs. 580 -860 (subsequently revised to Rs. 1200 -1800). At the same time, Senior Mechanic Grade I were being accorded the pay scale of Rs. 730 -1080. Inasmuch as the petitioner was not accorded the pay scale of Rs. 730. -1080, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 7647. of 1998 seeking the said pay scale. This Court by its order dated 7th August, 2000 directed the Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar, Patna to consider the case of the petitioner and if found the petitioner as Senior Mechanic Grade I was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 730 -1080 to make the same available to the petitioner right from the date he was promoted to the post of Senior Mechanic Grade I i.e. from 26th March, 1987.

(2.) PURSUANT to the said direction of this Court, the impugned order has been brought into existence by the Commis -sioner -curn - Secretary of the Public Health Engineering Department which is a mala fide order as would be evident from a simple reading thereof. In paragraphs 8.1 and 8,2 of the said order it has been stated that Sheo Nandan Das and Kapildeo Sharma were promoted as Senior Mechanic Grade I respectively on 1st October, 1983 and 12th March, 1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 730 -1080 but the petitioner was promoted as Senior Mechanic Grade -I on 26th March, 1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 580 -860. At the same time, in paragraph 8.1 it has been stated that Sheo Nandan Das was promoted as Senior Mechanic Grade II on 12th August, 1975 and there from was promoted as Senior Mechanic Grade I. There is, therefore, an unconditional admission of the fact that the post of Senior Mechanic Grade II is a lower post than the post of Senior Machanic Grade I. However, in the same breath in paragraph 7 of the order it has been stated that the Senior Machanic Grade II are entitled to the scale of Rs. 730. -1080. The order is so perverse and mala fide that the same cannot stand even for one single second. No where in the order it has been stated that there are two pay scales for Senior Mechanic Grade I. If Sheo Nandan Das and Kapildeo Sharma on being promoted to the post of Senior Mechanic Grade I on 1st October, 1983 and on 12th March, 1986 became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 730 -1080, why the petitioner who was subsequently promoted on 26th March, 1987 was not accorded that pay scale has not been stated. If a person holding a lower post of Senior Mechanic Grade II is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 730 -1080 why a person holding a superior post is entitled to a" lesser pay scale of Rs. 580 -860 has not been attempted to be explained at all in the impugned order inasmuch as there was no justifiable reason to explain the same. In the last part of paragraph 8.2 of the impugned order it has been indicated that inasmuch as people had come from different cadres they were entitled to different pay scale without however uttering a single word that the post known as Senior Mechanic Grade I carried two different pay scales. It is not only unheard of but it is unjust to contend that a person who is holding the same post as that of another person, discharging same duties and undertaking same responsibility will receive payment on two different scales. Even assuming that is permissible, which I am sure is not, but still then there must be some power to do the distinction which is not there as the same has not been uttered in the impugned order.

(3.) LET it be recorded that on 9th October, 2002 first an opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the State to file a counter affidavit and later on 21st June, 2005, yet another opportunity was given to file a counter affidavit but no such counter affidavit has been filed.