SITA RAM CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is about revision of his pensionary benefits in terms of order, Annexure -2, dated 21st of September, 2001, which, according to the petitioner, has not been taken into account while revising his pension in the revised pay scales and consequently his pension has been determined at a lower stage. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner has been promoted before retirement on 25th of July, 1996 on the post of Subordinate Judge and was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3,372 to Rs. 5,500 with effect from 1st of January, 1986. He retired on 31st of December, 1996. His initial pension was fixed on the basis of pay which he was actually drawing on the date of his retirement. Subsequent thereto the petitioner, by order dated 21st of September, 2001 was accorded promotion, termed as a need based promotion, to the third level of need based post. In other words, he was promoted to the third level post amongst the hierarchy of the judicial services. He was appointed, in the first instance, as a Munsif, now redesignated as Civil Judge, Junior Division. He has been promoted in 1996 as Civil Judge, Senior Division, that is to say the second level of the promotion post in the cadre and by order dated 21st of September, 2001 he was promoted to the third level though the promotion was caused to be need based. The third level of the post identified as Additional District Judge at Rs. 4,500 to Rs. 5,700/ - which is applicable to the post of Additional District Judge. This promotion was made with effect from 31st of May, 1990.

(3.) WHEN the pay scale was revised and the Judicial Officer in terms of the recommendations made by First National Judicial Pay Commission the petitioner 'spension was also to be revised in terms of the said recommendations. While revising the pension of the petitioner in the revised pay scales with effect from the date of his retirement, which was after 1st of July, 1996, petitioner 'spension was computed by considering him to have retired on the post of Subordinate Judge only and taking the pay scale applicable to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, in the revised pay scale, his pension was fixed at 50% of the salary which was drawable by Subordinate Judge in the revised pay scale applicable to the said post. In coming to this conclusion, apparently,the position of the petitioner which obtained as a result of order dated 21st of September, 2001 had not been taken into account. While the effect of order dated 21st of September, 2001, was that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional District Judge with effect from 31st of May, 1990 and he must be deemed to have retired from the post of Additional District Judge on 31st of December, 1996. The petitioner retired on the post of Additional District Judge on 31st of December, 1996. As a consequence of order dated 21st of September, 2001, his revised pension ought to have been fixed on that basis by considering the petitioner having been retired as Additional District Judge and the pension ought to have been fixed at pay scale as Additional District Judge. That having not been done, apparently the revised pay scale of the petitioner in pursuance of the recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission suffers from the patent error.