THAKUR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) PETITIONER having completed more than 33 years of service superannuated while serving as Dy. S.P. with effect from 31.1.1986 and thereafter his terminal benefits were finalized and pension fixed. Later Government of Bihar accepted the recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, 18/4/2014 in Page terms 209 whereof the pension of the petitioner was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 at Rs. 3959.00 per month. By filing this writ application petitioner has asserted that such revision of pension is arbitrary and violative High Court Of Judicature At Patna Versus Ram Kripal Prasad of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him those who have completed more than 33 years of qualifying service and retired on or before 31.12.1985 are allowed pension of Rs. 5265.00 per month with effect from 1.1.1996 which is Rs. 1306.00 more than the petitioner who also superannuated after completing more than 33 years of qualifying service after 1.1.1986 but without completing ten months service in the revised scale. It is submitted that the anomalous situation has arisen because for revising the pension with effect from 1.1.1996 average of the ten months pay and emoluments in the revised scale is taken but as the petitioner served in the revised scale only for one month, his pension is revised on the basis of average of emolument of nine months in pre -revised and one month in revised scale. Those who superannuated on or before 31.12.1985 average of ten months notional pay and emolument in the revised scale is taken that is how their pension in the revised scale is more than the petitioner and others superannuating after 1.1.1986 but without completing ten months in the revised scale. On account of such fixation petitioner is suffering pecuniary loss of Rs. 1306.00 per month.

(3.) BY filing counter affidavit State respondents with reference to the order passed by the Chief Secretary, Bihar bearing memo No.1577 dated 22.11.2007 has justified the fixation of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on 1.1.1996 at Rs. 3,959.00 as according to the respondents in terms of the recommendation/resolution of the State Government pursuant to the submission of the 5th Pay Revision Committee report the pensionary emoluments of those who have superannuated after 1.1.1986 is required to be fixed taking into account the average of the ten months pay and emoluments but as the petitioner served in the revised scale only for one month till 31.1.1986, in his case for revising his pensionary emoluments, nine months pay and emolument were taken from the pre -revised scale admissible to him prior to 1.1.1986 and one month 'semolument in the revised scale whereas those who have retired on or before 31.12.1985, in their case ten months notional revised pay and emoluments effective from 1.1.1986 have been taken into account which is the reason for paying higher pension for those who have retired on or before 31.12.1985. Had the petitioner also retired one month earlier, his pension would also have been revised taking into account notional pay and emoluments in the revised scale for ten months but as the petitioner superannuate after serving for one month in the revised scale, he cannot be allowed the benefit of fixation of pension on the basis of notional pay and emoluments of nine months.