Partly allowed

Niraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Apr 2023CWJC/3437/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the petitioner's claim for the benefit of the 6th Pay Revision. Relying on Article 14 and findings of facts regarding similar decisions for other employees, the court directed the Municipal Commissioner to sanction the revised pension within three weeks. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Municipal Commissioner to dispose of the representation within three weeks and sanction the revised pension amount to the petitioner.

Niraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3437 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Niraj Kumar Son of late Ram Sharan Rai, Residence of Mohalla- Dujara, Western of the Masazid , P.O. and P.S.- Budha Colony, G.P.O. Patna- 1, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶7

Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved)/Patna Municipal Corporation, through city Commissioner.

¶8

The City Commissioner, Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved)/Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Complex, Block-C, 2nd Floor, Dokbanglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna.

¶9

The Controller of Finance and Accounts, Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Complex, Block-C, 2nd Floor, Dokbanglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suresh Kumar, AC to GP-1 For the P.M.C. : Mrs. Kiran Kumar, Advocate

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

8 21-04-2023

¶14

Heard Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned AC to GP-1 for the State.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs this Court that the petitioner as on date is only aggrieved for non payment of the benefit of 6^th Pay Revision which came into force with effect from 01.01.2006. He submitted that the retired employee who are the pension holders are entitled for revision of pension from the date the State Government had adopted the 6^th Pay Revision, which has also

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.3437 of 2020(8) dt.21-04-2023 2/3

¶17

been adopted by the Municipality.

¶18

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that all the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner, however, he is not entitled to the benefit of 6^th Pay Revision after his retirement.

¶19

It is admitted fact that petitioner was granted Senior Selection Grade Scale Rs. 1800-3330. In the meantime, similarly situated retired employee of Patna Regional Development Authority as then was, had filed writ petition and this Court in several writ petitions after hearing the parties has dismissed the claim of the writ petitioners.

¶20

Contrary to the fact that petitioner is not entitled for benefit of 6^th Pay Revision record reveals that other employees who had retired from the petitioner’s organization have been given benefit of 6^th Pay Revision. The petitioner has brought by way of ‘Annexure-9’ series orders contained in Memo No. 674 dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Municipal Commissioner and which shows that the pension relating to the concerned employee was revised from 01.01.1996 in light of the direction of this Court passed in CWJC Nos. 7050, 7051 and 7226 of 2001. No doubt, in the present case the petitioner has come before this Court after much delay.

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.3437 of 2020(8) dt.21-04-2023 3/3

¶22

The petitioner, if so desires may represent before the Municipal Commissioner for the relief(s) as prayed for in the present writ petition.

¶23

The Municipal Commissioner is required to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks if he find that the petitioner should be treated then he must abide by the mandate of Article-14 of the Constitution by giving him the benefit of 6^th Pay Revision within the aforesaid period and accordingly, sanction the amount to be paid to the petitioner in his account on the basis of revised pension.

¶24

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed

¶25

of.

¶26

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶27

Niraj/Nilmani

¶28

Niraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Ranjan Chaubey @ Rakesh Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

Anuragh Kumar Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Sarbin Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Rajendra Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Bharat Singh Vs The State of Bihar