AJIT KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for fixation and payment of his full pension with effect from 1st November, 1991, full gratuity as well as fixation and payment of his salary in the scale of Rs. 3700-5000 which, according to him is the prescribed scale for the post of Director, Printing and Stationary with effect from 14th January, 1983 besides interest thereon.

(2.) The petitioner was in the service of the State Government and retired while serving as Director, Printing and stationary in the Finance Department. After retirement the petitioner has been paid 90 per cent of the Provisional penion in the scale prescribed for the post of Superintendent, but other dues like gratuity and final pension have not been paid even in the scale of Superintenlent, which he was holding in substanive capacity.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government in the Finance Department and its of- officers respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and a counter affidavit on behalf of the Accountant General (respondent No. 4) has also been filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that the petitioner was originally holding the post of Superintendent, Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna. He was assigned the duties of Director, Printing and Stationary in addition to his own duty vide Finance Department memo No. 164/F(2) dated 14-1-1983. According to the respondents it was not an order of promotion, but just an ad hoc arrangement, for which the petitioner had been paid at the rate of 20 per cent additional pay of the basic pay as per the Finance Department memo No. 1082/F(2) dated 22-2-1988. Thus, according to the respondents, the question of promotion, fixation and payment of salary/full pension in the scale of Rs. 3700-5000 prescribed for the post of Director does not arise. As regards other reliefs for payment of post retiral dues it is stated that an enquiry is pending in the Vigilance Department related with a forgery case against the petitioner. Therefore, the same has been held up.