Dismissed

Ram Prasad Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Sept 2018CWJC/10937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought revision of pension from 1986. The Court found the benefit was actually granted from 1996, disposing the petition. The Court also directed action against officers for making contradictory and misleading statements in affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off. Directed Principal Secretary to identify officers for misleading statements and proceed against them.

Ram Prasad Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10937 of 2018

¶2

===========================================================

¶3

Ram Prasad Mishra, Son of Late Brij Nandan Mishra, Resident of Mohalla- A/108 Pepuls Copretive Colony P.S. Kankarbagh Patna- 800020.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary/Commissioner, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Ashok Raj Path, Patna.

¶9

The Registrar, Patna University, Ashok Raj Path, Patna.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Date: 24-09-2018

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and Patna University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’).

¶13

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following

¶14

relief:

¶15

“That this writ petition is being filed for direction to the concerned authority i.e. the Respondent no. 3 to determine and revise the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as per order dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure-2) passed by Respondent no. 3 with interest.”

¶16

From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

¶17

University, the stand is that the benefit given to the Section Officer in terms of the Notification No. 1547 dated 06.11.2012 relating to scale of pay of Section Officer of the University, by which it was

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.10937 of 2018 dt.24-09-2018

¶19

2/4

¶20

made effective from 01.01.1986 in light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 826 of 2002 and of the High Court in M.J.C. No. 1044 of 1996, the University has come with a revised notification by which the benefit has been granted with effect from 01.01.1996.

¶21

Further, the State Government by resolution contained in Memo No. 898 dated 07.06.2007 had granted the scale with effect from 01.01.1996. From the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 826 of 2002 dated 17.07.2008, it transpires that when the Hon’ble Court has taken note of the fact that the post of Section Officer and Typist of the University and State of Bihar have been made equal and further when this position was agreed upon by learned counsel for the Patna University and the appellant, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thus, the Court finds that the dismissal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.07.2008, obviously was more than a year after the resolution of the State dated 07.06.2007, according to it, the scale was made admissible with effect from 01.01.1996. Moreover, in the counter affidavit the University has categorically taken a stand that the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 6,500/- to 10,500/- has been granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1996.

¶22

In view thereof, the Court finds that whatever was

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.10937 of 2018 dt.24-09-2018

¶24

3/4

¶25

due to the petitioner has been granted to him and reliance cannot be placed on the notification dated 06.11.2012, for the reason that in view of the aforesaid background, the University has also now formally withdrawn the said notification by a fresh notification contained in Memo No. 1250 dated 30.07.2018.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶27

Before parting, the Court is required to take note of the fact that by order dated 04.09.2018, there was specific direction to learned counsel for the State to file specific affidavit relating to the time frame i.e., by when the committee has been asked to submit its report and thereafter by when the State Government would take a decision on the same, and the matter was directed to be listed today. Though a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, it has been stated that after approval of the Finance Department, a Committee shall be constituted. The Court finds this to be contemptuous for the reason that in the earlier affidavit filed on 31.08.2018, it has been stated at paragraph no. 19 that formation of Committee for submitting report on proposed benefits to be extended to the University employees according to UGC approved 7^th Pay structure is in process and the said Committee will submit its report and then the Government will take a decision. However, in the affidavit, filed today, it has been stated at Paragraph No. 3 that after getting

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.10937 of 2018 dt.24-09-2018

¶29

4/4

¶30

approval from the Finance Department and competent authority, the Committee will be constituted to consider such implementation. Thus, the two stands taken are contrary to each other, despite the fact that it has been affirmed by the same person, who is Deputy Secretary of the Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The Court finds that such position on oath, which is contradictory, equally amounts to misleading the Court.

¶31

In view thereof, the Court directs the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar to fix responsibility on the officers, who are responsible for stating contrary and misleading facts before the Court and then proceed against them for such conduct, in accordance with law.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State shall communicate the order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar for compliance.

¶33

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

¶34

Anand Kr.

¶35

AFR/NAFR U

Ram Prasad Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Mishra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Jahangir and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Pawan Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Bundi Paswan @ Bunpi Paswan and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Deo Narayan Sharma Vs The T. M. Bhagalpur University and Ors.

Ram Pukari Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satya Narayan Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.