SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT-PATNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was holding the post of Assistant in the Department of Planning and superannuated on 31.7.2000. According to the petitioner, he was getting pay scale of Rs. 5,500 -9,000/ - and the pay was Rs. 8,650/ - at the time of his superannuation. Thereafter the provisional pension, gratuity etc. were sanctioned but final settlement of his retirement dues was not made for a while. During the service period of the petitioner, petitioner had been given benefit of first time bound promotion w.e.f. 15.7.1993 but only during the course of final settlement of the pension of the petitioner an objection was raised by the Finance Department that the petitioner ought not to have been given first time bound promotion in view of certain circulars of the department because he had not passed the departmental examination while in service. Not only this, even his prayer for exemption made earlier was rejected by the concerned authorities in the year 2005.

(2.) THE decision to withdraw the first time bound promotion granted to the petitioner has been taken vide order dated 11th of August, 2004 which is Annexure - 6. The benefit has been withdrawn from the retrospective date and the salary of the petitioner has been refixed. Annexure - 6 therefore is under challenge as well as the subsequent decision of the Accountant General who reduced the pension of the petitioner which was authorized vide PPO No. 403617. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all this decision has been taken by the respondents after almost 4 years of his retirement and that too, without opportunity of hearing in this regard. In addition to the same it is also contended that time bound promotions have nothing to do with regard to qualifying of a person in the departmental examinations. In this regard reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in the case of Ramjee Pd. Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1999(3) PLJR 648.

(3.) NOT only this, it is also urged that there are exemption clause with regard to passing of the departmental examination for such employees who had crossed the age of 50 years. During the service period petitioner had also made request in this regard but respondent authority kept quiet in the matter and only in the year 2005 did they find it convenient to reject the prayer for exemption.