BHARTI PRASAD ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide the benefit of notional promotion on the post of Super Time Selection Grade and fix the pay scale thereof for the purpose of determination of retiral benefit and to pay the difference amount in lieu thereof within a specified period.

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application is that petitioner was initially appointed on 29.04.1960 as Lower Division Assistant (Clerk) in Singhbhum Collectorate, Chaibasa. The respondent no.2 was the appointing as well as the super controlling officer. By resolution dated 30.12.1981 the undivided State of Bihar directed implementation of the benefit accrued to its employees with effect from 01.04.1981 and accordingly, the basic pay of the Stenographers Service Cadre was fixed at Rs.680-965/- and the petitioner also became entitled to the same scale of pay with effect from 01.04.1981. In the year 1985 a seniority list of Stenographer seniority cadre was published wherein the name of the petitioner found place at Serial no.3. By letter dated 13.09.1985 the petitioner was granted Junior Selection Grade on the pay scale of Rs.730-1080/- instead of Rs.1400-2600/- by way of Second Time Bound Promotion with effect from 29.04.1985 on completion of 25 years of service and the resolution was issued by the Government on 18.12.1989 for implementation of the revision of pay replacing the pay scale of Rs.730-1080 to 1400-2300/-. It has been stated in the writ application that the petitioner being the senior most member of the cadre service after getting the first promotion to Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.04.1981 was entitled to Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.04.1985 but despite continuous services rendered by the petitioner, the petitioner did not get such benefit. On 30.04.1997 the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Stenographer from the office of respondent no.2. After retirement from the said post, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent no.2 for re-fixation of pay on the basis of recommendation of Pay Anomaly Committee vide Annexure-1 to the writ application. The representation of the petitioner did not evoke any response from the respondents. Due to such inaction on the part of the respondents in fixing the Super Time Selection Grade, the petitioner left with no alternative, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sahni, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ravi Kumar, J.C. to S.C.II, appearing for the respondents.