Allowed

Sheochandra Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Jan 2014CWJC/9872/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed orders fixing the petitioner's post-retirement pay-scale and ordering recovery from his pension. The Court held that a pay-scale acquired during service cannot be altered after retirement and allowed the writ application.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-8 and 11 quashed. No recovery from petitioner's pension based on said decisions. Petitioner's pension to be fixed in accordance with previous pay-scale.

Sheochandra Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.9872 of 2012 (3) dt.13-01-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9872 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Sheochandra Yadav S/O Jagdambi Yadav R/O Vill-Bariyahi, P.O.-Simariya Ghat, Distt-Begusarai

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through Principal Secretary, Water Resoureces Department Govt. Of Bihar,, Patna

¶5

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department Samastipur 3. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Division Khagaria 4. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division No.1 Khagaria 5. The Accountant General Bihar, Patna

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s

¶7

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Avnish Nandan Sinha Gp11

¶8

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER

¶9

¶10

03. 13.01.2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

By virtue of Annexure-8, dated 22.07.2011,

¶12

the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reworked after his retirement from the post of Accounts Clerk from Flood Control Division-1, Khagaria. This re-fixation of pay-scale has had consequential effect, which is reflected in Annexure-11, which is dated 03.03.2012. By virtue of this decision a recovery of Rs. 5,43,496 /- has been ordered to be made from the petitioner’s pension, payment of pension etc.

¶13

Short facts are that the petitioner initially joined the service of the respondent-Irrigation Department, which has now been renamed as Water

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.9872 of 2012 (3) dt.13-01-2014

¶15

Resources Department on 21.07.1973. He was later on appointed on the post of Correspondence Clerk in terms of Annexure-1, dated 16.07.1981.

¶16

It is a fact that there were two classes of post of Clerks, known as Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk with two different pay-scales. The two posts were merged and given the nomenclature of Accounts Clerk with common pay-scale w.e.f. 01.05.1980. The de-merger took place subsequently with different pay-scales.

¶17

Several disputes have arisen in the past before this Court, when the pay-scale of such persons was sought to be revised. The Courts in their wisdom had decided that persons who came to be appointed prior to 01.04.1981 will continue to remain in the payscale given to them on the basis of merger and treating the senior Accounts Clerk pay-scale as to be the payscale for such persons. However, persons appointed thereafter were given different pay-scales again of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk.

¶18

The present petitioner contends that his was a case of appointment prior to the cut-off date and a similar situation was gone into, by the Principal Secretary, Finance, who had occasion to deal with the

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.9872 of 2012 (3) dt.13-01-2014

¶20

matter on the basis of a direction issued under C.W.J.C. No. 15501 of 2010. The said decision is dated 02.06.2011 and contained in Annexure-13.

¶21

A reading of the said decision of the Principal Secretary would indicate the background to the dispute and the reason for such dispute, in quite a detail.

¶22

Real question, which is required to be answered, is whether the pay-scale, which was given to the petitioner while he was in service on the basis of a merger, earlier, can be taken away after retirement.

¶23

The stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that they are bound by the circulars and directions issued by the State-authorities from time to time Annexure-12 is the relevant circular based on which the recalculation or re-fixation of pay-scale has been done, leading to order of recovery.

¶24

Annexure-12 cannot be read in isolation, because if a decision by the State at the highest level, i.e., at the level of Principal Secretary, has been taken, indicating the above position, then there will be an occasion to press the same into the service of petitioner and infirmity or illegality being caused to the petitioner by way of such a decision, would be required to be reexamined.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.9872 of 2012 (3) dt.13-01-2014

¶26

In addition to that the stand of the petitioner is that all this was sought to be done after his retirement and no issue of such kind was raised while he was in service. More so without any notice or show-cause to him, which are valid grounds for interfering with Annexure-8 and 11.

¶27

The Court is not required to take note of all the various decisions rendered in this regard. However counsel for the petitioner does rely on similar kind of adjudications made earlier. One of them being the case of Raj Kishor Chaudhary versus State of Bihar, reported in 2013 (13) PLJR 641 as well as the decision rendered in case of Satya Narayan Yadav versus State of Bihar, reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 348.

¶28

Taking the ratio of the two decisions there is difficulty in upholding the decision of the respondents, especially the decisions contained in Annexure-8 and 11 and the same is quashed. Writ application is allowed. No recovery would be allowed on the basis of the said decisions. The pension of the petitioner is now required to be fixed in the light of above.

¶29

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

¶30

SKM/-

Sheochandra Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheochandra Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors.

Nisha Rani Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anshu Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Awadhesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Rafi Ahmad and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.