SATYENDRA NARAIN SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.12.86 as well as the order dated 29.1.94 passed by the respondents authority, whereby and where under the petitioner has been granted pension on the basis of his basic post of his appointment at a lower rate and further for a direction to the respondents to sanction pension to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1000 -1820/ - by allowing him paper promotion atleast at par with his junior appointees of the Industries Department. Copies of the orders are made Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to this writ application.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was appointed as Senior Instructor (Tanning) in the department of Industries in which post he was confirmed and was subsequently deputed in the Bihar State Leather Industries Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation ') on foreign service terms having lien on the permanent post in the parent department. Letter of appointment, orders of confirmation and deputation are marked as An -nexure -4 series to this writ application. During the period of deputation he was holding the post of Manager Grade II, thereafter Manager Grade I and lastly superannuated from the services of the Corporation as Development Officer on 30.9.83, which is Class I post in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2000/ -. It is alleged that while he was in the Corporation's service on deputation he filed several representations before the respondent State authority with a prayer to give him paper promotion in the parent department, so that his rightful claim for promotion may not be ignored particularly when he was having lien in the parent department which was never terminated till the date of his superannuation, copy of such representation is made Annexure -5 to this writ application. It is alleged that the juniors to the petitioner in the parent department after giving them promotion from time to time against the pay scale of Rs. 1000 -1820/ - and onwards, when the grant of pension of the petitioner came for consideration, the department neither considered the last pay drawn by the petitioner nor considered his case for grant of paper promotion against the higher post. However, the respondent Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department has agreed to determine the service condition etc. of the petitioner, as it appears from Annexure -6 to this writ application. It further appears that the Additional Director of Industries while examining the representation filed by the petitioner has specifically pointed out in his note the lapses of the State respondents so far grant of paper promotion and allowed him the scale of pay of Rs. 1000 -1820/ - against the post of Assistant Development Officer (Leather) and, accordingly, suggested for obtaining Govt, order. While taking into consideration the recommendation of the Additional Director of Industries, the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms agreed with the recommendation of the Additional Director. It further appears from the note submitted by the department of Personal and Administrative Reforms dated 29.10.94 that the lien of the petitioner against the post held by him in the parent department was never terminated and the petitioner would be treated to have retired from the parent department, namely, the lndustries itself, with all the facilities including the paper promotion against the suitable post. It was further observed in the note that it is incumbent upon the State to give paper promotion to such employee who holds lien on their permanent post. It is submitted that in spite of the recommendation having been made by the Director of Industries including the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which is the competent authority in this regard, the State respondents has neither allowed him promotion nor fixed his salary at Rs. 1080/ -, which is the prescribed scale against the post of Senior Instructor (Tanning) which the petitioner was holding in the year 1953 from the date of his first appointment. It is alleged that when the State respondent did not take any step pursuant to the recommendation aforesaid, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3092 of 1992 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 22.6.93, copy of the order is made Annexure -7 to this writ application. The concluding portion of the order reads thus : - ''We direct the Accountant General, Bihar to give personal hearing to the petitioner 's representative and pass an order on the question of pay scale to be payable with a notice to the petitioner whose representative shall also be heard by the Accountant General 's Office. Such decision is to be taken by 31st July, 1993 and the petitioner shall be paid accordingly. Such decision must be speaking order. '' Pursuant to the direction aforesaid the written submission was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner for consideration by the Accountant General. In compliance of the order aforesaid, the Accountant General disposed of the matter vide his order dated 4.10.93, as it appears from Annexure -9 to this writ application. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Accountant General, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 56/94 which was finally heard and disposed of on 8.12.94 with an observation that if he is so advised, can challenge the order of the respondent Accountant General. Photo copy of the order passed in the contempt petition dated 8.12.94 is made Annexure -10 to this writ application.

(3.) FROM the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents it appears that since there is only one post in the cadre the petitioner could not have been promoted on the higher post. Further stand of the State respondents is that since the first time bound promotion was allowed to the petitioner only in 1981 and retired on 21.6.83 and, accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to any second time bound promotion without completing the prescribed period of 3 to 5 years after granting of the first time bound promotion.