ARJUN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were initially appointed on daily wage under the respondents, Patna Municipal Corporation as Electric Mistri (Wireman). They joined their posts on 27.6.1979. Their services came to be regularized after almost twelve years and were given pay scale of Rs. 775 -1025. They came to draw their salaries from 1.2.1991. Annexure -4 has been brought on record in support of the above contention. Petitioners have filed the present writ application because the respondents are not giving them the current replacement pay scale which has been made available to employees of the State Government from 1.1.1986. They assert that in terms of the decision taken, employees of the Municipal Corporation are also entitled to the same pay scale as that of the State Government employees. They have brought an extract of the Pay Revision in relation to the employees of Science & Technology Department, Energy Department as well as Public Relation Department which is annexure -5 to the writ application. From this extract petitioners assert that for wireman, the post which they are holding the pay scale shown is Rs. 950 -1400 which has now been revised up to Rs. 3050 - 4590. Contention of the petitioners is that they were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4590 instead of what they are getting as of today.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioners has been resisted by the respondents. They have stated that by a decision taken by the Corporation based on the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee salary etc. of the employees of the Corporation has been revised from 1.1.86. The different pay scale, perks post revision for different post are contained in annexure -6 to the writ application which has been brought on record by the petitioners themselves. The category of the post and the corresponding pay scale available to them after revision is evident from a perusal of the said notification. There is no post indicated of wireman in the said notification contained in annexure -6 but the replacement scale pre and post are indicated. Even if the post of wireman has not been shown in this notification but it is not disputed by the petitioners that replacement pay scale of Rs. 775 - 1025 is Rs. 2550 -3200. If all employees who are getting the pre revised pay scale have been given the revised pay scale indicated above then the revised pay scale to the petitioners have been correctly given. Merely because in some departments of the State Government wireman has been shown to be a different class having a different pay scale the same cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. Even otherwise a bare perusal of annexure -5 would show that pay scale of wireman in other State departments was Rs. 950 -1400 pre revised whereas the petitioners have been getting pay scale of Rs. 775 -1025. They have accepted this pay scale for a long time and never sought any correction. If there is no dispute that the pay scale of these two petitioners was of Rs. 775 -1025 then they shall be entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 2550 -3200 and not Rs. 3050 - 4590. based on annexure -5. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not have any cogent explanation as to how they can be permitted different replacement pay scale altogether in terms of annexure -5 when admittedly they were not in the category of superior revised pay scale also. Merely because in the extract contained in annexure -5 the pay scale of higher order has been allowed to wireman, the petitioners cannot be beneficiary of the same.

(3.) THE Court finds from perusal of annexure -6 that the replacement pay scale of the petitioners from Rs. 775 -1025 is Rs. 2550 -3200 and this pay scale is being given to them. In the opinion of this Court by granting the revised pay scale in terms of annexure -6 and not entertaining the claim of the petitioners for a higher replacement pay scale in terms of annexure - 5, the respondents have committed no illegality. Petitioners have not made out a case for application of the replacement pay scale at par with the so called wiremen of other departments of the State Government. In the opinion of the Court, therefore the relief prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioners.