Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC27 Aug 2012L.P.A/1254/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letters patent appeal concerns a dispute over pay fixation upon the 1996 pay revision. The appellant, holding a time-bound promotion, claimed the higher corresponding scale, contrary to a government notification abolishing such promotions for pay revision purposes. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, and this court upheld that decision.

What did the court decide?

Reversal of the single judge's order in favor of the appellant to fix pay at Rs.6500-10500.

Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.1254 of 2011

¶3

In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18542 of 2009 With

¶4

Interlocutory Application No.6199 of 2011 In

¶5

Letters Patent Appeal No.1254 of 2011

¶6

====================================================== Jagdish Prasad Singh S/o Late Ram Swarup Singh R/o Mohalla Daudpur Kothi, Police Station- Brahampura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

¶7

.... .... Petitioner-Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Accountant General of Bihar, Patna

¶10

The Deputy Secretary, Food Supply Commerce Department, Bihar, Patna

¶11

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

¶12

The Sub-Divisional Officer (West), Muzaffarpur

¶13

The District Accounts Officer, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, AAG-9 Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, A.C. to AAG-9 ======================================================

¶14

.... .... Respondents-Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

and

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶18

27-08-2012 Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

¶19

Patna High Court LPA No.1254 of 2011 (5) dt.27-08-2012

¶20

2 / 3

¶21

23^rd February 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 18542 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶22

The matter at issue is the pay fixation on revision of pay effective from 1^st January 1996. The appellant on his promotion as Marketing Officer was entitled to the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 and the corresponding pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 on revision of pay effective from 1^st January 1996. However, the appellant, then in receipt of higher pay of Rs.20003800 on account of grant of time bound promotion, claims that on revision of pay he was entitled to a higher pay in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.

¶23

The Government of Bihar had, under its Notification dated 8^th February 1999, revised the pay scales of its employees effective from 1^st January 1996. Paragraph 11 of the said Notification specifically mentions, “ The State Government have decided to abolish the existing facilities of Time Bound Promotions and selection grades, discussed in paras 10 and 12 of F.D. Resolution No.6021 dt. 18^th December 1989 and they shall cease to be applicable with effect from 1^st January 1996 and thereafter in the existing pay scales. ”

¶24

In view of the aforesaid specific stipulation, while giving the benefit of the revised pay scales the selection grade granted to the appellant in the scale of Rs.2000-3800 was not taken into consideration and the pay revision was made keeping in view the substantive pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. Accordingly, the pay fixation was made in the corresponding scale of Rs.55009000.

¶25

In our opinion, the benefit of pay revision and

¶26

Patna High Court LPA No.1254 of 2011 (5) dt.27-08-2012

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

fixation of pay has been extended to the appellant in consonance with the aforesaid Notification dated 8^th February 1999. The higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 claimed by the appellant is not sustainable. Learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

¶29

No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine .

¶30

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶31

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶32

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶33

Pawan/-

Jagdish Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bihar Staff Selection Comm Vs Manish Kumar and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Smt.Kumkum Devi and Anr.

Sushil Chandra Srivastava Vs the Presiding Officer,Industri

Dr.Surendra Mohan Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ganesh Bhagat Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kanti Prasad Vs the Bihar State Food and Civil S