SITA RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having had worked for nine years with the Union of India the petitioner became an employee of the State of Bihar. Inasmuch as the petitioner had worked for nine years with the Union of India and inasmuch as the appointment by the State Government was not a new appointment but a continuation of the appointment, as was given by the Union of India, the petitioner, in law, became entitled to increments that he had already earned while working with the Union of India. Prior to the date he became an employee of the State of Bihar, he having had already earned nine increments, his salary payable by the State of Bihar in the scale agreed to was fixed by adding nine increments. This was done in terms of a decision taken by the State of Bihar by a resolution bearing no. 1062 dated 12th June, 1976. The said resolution provided that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 387 -600/ -. Though the petitioner became an employee of the State of Bihar on 1st September, 1973, having regard to the said resolution dated 12th June, 1976, after having had given nine increments in the scale of Rs. 387 -600/ -, the salary of the petitioner payable on 1st September, 1973 was fixed at Rs. 510/ -.

(2.) BY a letter bearing Memo No. 724 dated 25th November, 1995, the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Government, Art, Culture and Youth Department informed the Accountant General, Bihar that the people as that of the petitioner, i.e. whose original appointment in the Union of India continued with the State of Bihar, shall be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 387 -600/ - but not nine increments from 25th November, 1995. Before the petitioner retired, this decision dated 25th November, 1995 was not implemented. The petitioner was adjusted in the revised scale with effect from 1st January, 1996 upon taking into consideration those nine increments he had for having had served the Central Government. When the petitioner claimed pension, it was purported to be contended that the petitioner from 1st of September, 1973 became disentitled to any of those nine increments; despite the letter of the said Deputy Secretary dated 25th November, 1995 does not say so. On the basis thereof, the pay of the petitioner was refixed and it was held out that the petitioner had overdrawn a large sum of money. The petitioner was not appointed by the State of Bihar. His appointment by the Central Government was taken over by the State of Bihar. The appointment as was given to the petitioner by the Central Government continued in the State Government. Whatever the petitioner earned by reason of serving the Central Government, the petitioner became entitled to receive the same while serving the State Government. Being alive of the responsibility of the State Government in that regard, by a resolution dated 12th June, 1976, while the petitioner was accorded the scale of Rs. 387 -600/ - he was also accorded nine increments in the said scale. A Deputy Secretary of the State Government, twenty years later, could not in any manner interfere with the said decision of the Government which had been acted upon for twenty years in the meantime. In any event even the said letter of the Deputy Secretary dated 25th November, 1995 did not obliterate the increments from the date the petitioner came to serve the State of Bihar. The letter dated 25th November, 1995 made the decision contained therein prospective. Despite that, the manner in which the authorities have acted, as narrated above, is astounding. This amply demonstrates that the Officers engaged by the State Government to look into these aspects are totally incompetent or oblivious of their obligations towards the employees of the State.

(3.) BE that as it may, not only a Deputy Secretary to the State Government, even the State Government after having had accorded consciously a pay to a Government employee for twenty years cannot withdraw the same without any just reason but on the basis of ipse dixit. The letter dated 25th November, 1995 does not record any reason why those nine increments should not be given to the petitioner or to people similarly situate to that of the petitioner. No prudent person on the basis of the said letter dated 25th November, 1995 could act while discharging the duties of the State Government towards its employees.