RAM CHANDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner was initially appointed on 1st March, 1966 as a supply officer under the Food and Civil Supply Department, Bihar, Patna and was promoted from time to time. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Asstt. Marketing Officer vide order dated 30.4.76 and vide office order dated 6th August, 1983 he was promoted to the post of Marketing officer. When the petitioner was posted as Marketing officer his pay scale was revised as per recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission in the pay scale of Rs. 2000 -3800/ - w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide Finance Notification dated 23.10.90 and the same was informed by the Dist. Accounts Officer vide his letter dated 11.12.90. That vide another officer order dated 16.12.85 the petitioner was given the Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1.4.81 in the pay scale of Rs. 2400 -4150/ - and vide office order dated 18th August, 1994 he was posted as Asstt. Supply officer at Lohardaga. The petitioner along with five others were transferred and posted to the post of Dist. Supply Officer against the vacant sanctioned posts vide an office order dated 17.12.1996 and continued till the date of superannuation i.e. on 31.1.2000 and he worked as Dist. Supply Officer at Giridih in the pay scale of Rs. 6500 -10500/ -. After retirement his admissible dues was paid after calculating all the benefits in the scale of Rs. 6500 -10500/ - and not in the revised pay scale i.e. Rs. 8000 -13500/ - as revised by the Notification dated 13th February, 1999 of Finance Department. Being aggrieved the petitioner moved several times before authorities concerned by way of representation for grant of benefit as per revised pay scale but all went in vain. During the pendency of his representation a letter dated 9.8.2000 was issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Dy. Commissioner, Giridih whereby and whereunder it was informed that the pay scale of the petitioner as Dist. Supply Officer is mentioned as Rs. 6500 -10500/ - w.e.f. 1.1.96 whereas the petitioner was not promoted to that scale and was originally in the post of marketing officer and accordingly his pay was to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 -9000/ - w.e.f. 1.1.96 and also directed to refix his pay scale at Rs. 5500 -9000/ - w.e.f. 1.1.96 and to recover the excess amount and to fix and correct the pension paper accordingly which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery made from the pension was illegal and against the provisions of Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and also in violation of a Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, rendered in the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta v. The State of Jharkhand as reported in 2007(4) J.L.J.R. 459. The second aspect of the matter is that once the pay has been fixed in the scale of Rs. 6500 -10500/ -, the pension should have been accordingly fixed with effect from 1st January, 1996 with all benefits and not with effect from 1997 since the promotion order of 2007 itself discloses with effect from 1st January, 1996.