UMA SHANKAR RAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to GA 9 for the respondent State of Bihar and learned counsel for the Accountant General.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to compute pension, gratuity, earned leave and other post retiral dues after granting benefits of time bound promotion as well as in terms of other benefits provided by the State Government and thereafter, to regularly pay the pension, for a direction to the respondent authorities to revise the pension and other post retiral dues of the petitioner in terms of recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Commission as extended to employees of the State of Bihar vide letter no. 820 dated 23.09.2009 issued by the Finance Department, Bihar, to revise the pension and other post retiral dues of the petitioner after taking into account grant of ACP with effect from 09.08.1999, to pay arrears of pension, gratuity, earned leave and other post retiral dues with interest from the date of entitlement and for other reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he retired on 28.02.2005 as Revenue Clerk from the District Buxar. After retirement the pension of the petitioner was revised with effect from 01.03.2005 vide pension payment order issued by the office of the Accountant General (A& E) Bihar, Patna dated 23.03.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner was accorded the benefit of ACP and was given the pay scale of 5000-150-8000/- with effect from 09.08.1999. Although the consequent pay of the petitioner was fixed with effect from 09.08.1999 vide letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Buxar however, the pension of the petitioner was not revised in terms of the newly fixed salary. It was further submitted that pension of the petitioner was also not revised in terms of letter no. 820 dated 23.09.2009 issued by the Finance Department, Bihar and as such benefits of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Commission was not extended to the petitioner although the same was given to other employees. Further 132 % Dearness Allowance on the pension was also not being paid to the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2016 in terms of memo no. 9386 dated 09.12.2016 issued by the Finance Department.