Dismissed

Basudeo Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Apr 2023CWJC/778/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Patna HC dismissed a writ petition seeking correction of pay fixation and quashing of rejection orders. The Court held that since the underlying claim had already been finally settled in an unchallenged order dated 07.12.2018, the petitioner couldn't re-agitate the issues via Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed for failure to question the finalized order of 07.12.2018 and inability to re-agitate settled issues.

Basudeo Prasad 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.778 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Basudeo Prasad, Son of Dukhharan Singh @ Dukharan Singh, Resident of Village-Khaprail Chak, P.O. and P.S.-Parsa Bazar, District-Patna (Bihar), PIN800008, Presently Residing at-Reva, Maner Sarai, Dinapur-Cum-Khagaul, P.S.-Rupaspur, District-Patna, Bihar, Pin-801503, Retired Inspector Weights and Measures, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through the Secreary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar-800015.

¶6

The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna-800015.

¶7

The Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna800015

¶8

The Director Agriculture, Bihar New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar-800001.

¶9

The Joint Director-Cum-Controller, Weights and Measures, Raza Bazar, Patna, Bihar-800014.

¶10

... ... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harendra Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC-15 ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 11-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶16

counsel for the State.

¶17

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking the

¶18

following reliefs:-

¶19

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the Respondents to correct the fixation of pay off the petitioner in Junior Upper Grade (Kaniya Pravar Koti) in pay scale Rs.1800-3330 and further in pay scale of Rs.2000-3800 and 2400-4150 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide Circular dated 24.01.1994 of Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar and thereafter, in pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and to fix his pay Rs.8000 + RPP Rs.370 on 01.01.1996 and consequently in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 to fix the pay scale of the petitioner in pay scale Rs.8000-13500 w.e.f.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023

¶21

2/10

¶22

01.01.2006 in his promoted grade of Inspector, Weights and Measures for which the petitioner is entitled, but the Respondents Authority denied arbitrarily which is illegal and irrational and violation of Article 300A Constitution of India whereas similarly situated persons namely Vrind Kumar Singh has been granted (Annexure-6).

¶23

(ii) For quashing the office order No. 449 dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure-27) and the office order No. 01/A.G.-03/19-3776 dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure-28) issued by the Agriculture Director, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no. 4) and the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.-3) respectively whereby and whereunder the Application/Representation dated 20.02.2019, 01.03.2019 and 30.08.2019 as well as Application/Representation dated 27.02.2019 and 05.03.2019 with regard to the claim of the petitioner for grant of 2^nd ACP-MACP due w.e.f. 09.08.1999 P.B. -3+ Grade Pay-6600/- and 3^rd ACP-MACP w.ef. 01.01.2009 in the pay grade 10,000-15,200/- P.B.-3+ Grade Pay-7600/- of the petitioner entitled to the rank/grade of Inspector, Weights and Measures has been rejected which is arbitrary, illegal, irrational and sophistical and violation of Finance Department Notification No. 769/VI. (2) dated 28.01.2009 and A.C.P. Scheme Rules 2003 and M.A.C.P. Scheme Rules 2010 on the matter concerned and is violation of natural justice and Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the similarly situated person namely Mahendra Vishwas has been granted P.B.-3+ Grade Pay-7600/-(Annexure-26).

¶24

(iii) For direction to the Respondent Authorities, after quashing the order dated 07.08.2019 and 13.11.2019 (Annexure-27&28), for granting further benefits of the Gazetted Post in lieu of an in place of promotion as the 2^nd ACP-MACP due w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 3^rd ACP-MACP w.e.f. 01.01.2009 claim in the pay grade 10,000-15,200/- P.B. -3+ Grade Pay-Rs.7600/- to the petitioner applicable in the next two higher rank/grade of Assistant Controller and Deputy Controller, Weights and Measures as directed by the Hon’ble Court in order dated 08.02.2019 in M.J.C. No. 3649 of 2017 (Annexure-19) and for further direction to the Respondents to make payment of the

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 3/10

¶26

monetary arrears of difference of pay of the petitioner along with 13% interest.

¶27

(iv) For further direction to the Respondents, after correcting the pay fixation and ACP-MACP, for refixation of pension of the petitioner in the corrected and revised pay scale and heavy compensation/cost be awarded against erring Respondent Authorities. (v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the Petitioner is entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

Brief Facts of the Case & Submissions of the Petitioner

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined in Agriculture Department category-8 (Weights and Measures), Government of Bihar on 31.01.1975 as Clerk in Patna Headquarter Office. It is his case that he joined in the pay scale of 220-315 revised from time to time and reached in the pay scale of 5500-9000 in the post of Head Clerk.

¶30

4. The petitioner had his earlier round of litigation in CWJC No. 05 of 2007 for his promotion to the post of Inspector, Weights and Measures, in view of his being senior and experienced Clerk who had already rendered 10 years or more service in the particular grade. The said writ application was allowed in favour of the petitioner but the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court upturned the order of the learned Single Judge. The order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 344 of 2011 was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Apeal No. 8708 of 2017 which was allowed vide order dated 07.07.2017.

¶31

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 4/10

¶33

implementation of the directions of this Court in CWJC No. 05 of 2007, the petitioner had to file a contempt application being MJC No. 3649 of 2017. At the stage of show cause in the said contempt matter, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Inspector, Weights and Measures w.e.f. 31.01.1985 vide Order No. 986 dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure ‘4’ to the writ application).

¶34

6. It is stated that, however, the consequential benefits such as fixation of pay in the grade of Inspector revised from time to time was not given correctly and an erroneous pay fixation was done.

¶35

7. It is the case of the petitioner that after his promotion in the rank/grade of Inspector, Weights and Measures w.e.f. 31.01.1985, he was placed in the Junior Upper Grade (Kaniya Pravar Koti) and he became entitled for the pay scale of Kaniya Pravar Koti but the pay scale was not fixed in Junior Upper Grade (Kaniya Pravar Koti). It is submitted that the similarly situated persons as stated in paragraph ‘13’ of the writ application were granted the benefit of the pay scale of Junior Upper Grade.

¶36

8. The petitioner represented for grant of such benefits but vide Memo No. 449 dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure ‘27’), the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Memo No. 3776 dated 13.11.2019, the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Agriculture Department has communicated him a reasoned order by which his representations dated 20.02.2019, 01.03.2019 and

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 5/10

¶38

30.08.2019 have been rejected.

¶39

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have wrongly rejected the representation of the petitioner and he has been denied the parity in the matter of grant of pay scale.

¶40

Submissions of the State

¶41

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this writ application. It is submitted that vide order as contained in Annexure ‘4’ to the writ application, the grievances of the petitioner have been considered in the light of the judgment of the learned Writ Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is stated that while allowing the writ application, the learned Writ Court held that the petitioner would be entitled for being considered for promotion and appointment as Inspector, Weight and Measures as per his seniority in the cadre from the time promotion was due to him. The Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna was directed to see that the order of this Court is implemented in letter and spirit.

¶42

11. The Hon’ble Division Bench, however, upturned the said order and dismissed the writ petition whereafter the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case of the petitioner and held that the Hon’ble Division Bench completely misread sub-Rule (2) which exempted the application of Rule 20(2) to persons who were eligible for promotion as Inspectors before commencement of the Rules. It is stated that in this case, the State Government had made Bihar

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 6/10

¶44

Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1988 by virtue of the power conferred upon the State under Section 72 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. It is submitted that the order as contained in Memo No. 986 dated 07.12.2018 is a reasoned order. This order has never been challenged by the petitioner and in the present writ application also there is no prayer to quash Memo No. 986 dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure ‘4’).

¶45

12. Learned counsel submits that there being a reasoned order in form of Annexure ‘4’ which is not under challenge, no fault may be found with the impugned orders as contained in Annexures ‘27’ and ‘28’ which clearly state that the grievances of the petitioner have been earlier considered and decided vide order dated 07.12.2018. In this regard, the specific statements present in the order contained in Annexures ‘27’ and ‘28’ have been referred to.

¶46

Consideration

¶47

13. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, at this stage, without going into the merit of the contentions of the petitioner as regards Annexures ‘27’ and ‘28’ of the writ application, this Court is of the considered opinion that there being no challenge to the reasoned order as contained in Memo No. 986 dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure ‘4’), the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issues which have already been settled by Annexure ‘4’ to the writ application. This Court would reproduce the relevant part of the reasoned order as under:-

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 7/10

¶49

“2. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ikfjr mi;qZDr U;k;kns”k fnukad 07-07-2017 ds vkyksd esa vkosnd Jh oklqnso izlkn lsokfuor iz/kku fyfid dk;kZy; fu;a=d&lg&la;qDr df’k funs”kd ¼eki ,oa rkSy½ fcgkj] iVuk }kjk lefiZr fd;s x;s vius nkok vH;kosnu fnuakd 03-01-2018 esa fuEuakfdr nkoksa dks iznku djus ds fy, vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS %&

¶50

¼i½ fujh{kd] eki ,oa rkSy ds in ij fnukad 3101-1985 ds izHkko ls osrueku 1600&2370@& :i;s esa izksUufrA

¶51

¼ii½ f}rh; ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr fnukad 09-08-1999 ds izHkko ls osrueku 10]000&15]200@& :i;s esa Lohd`fr

¶52

¼iii½ rrh; ,e0,0lh0ih izksUufr fnukad 03-012005 ds izHkko ls osrueku ih0ch0&3 xszM is & 7600@& :i;s esa LohdfrA

¶53

3- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ikfjr mi;qZDr U;k;kns”k fnukad 07-07-2017 rFkk vkosnd ds nkok vH;kosnu fnukad 03-01-2018 ds lkFk&lkFk df’k funs”kky; esa miyC/k vU; vfHkys[kksa ds voyksduksijkar vkosnd Jh oklqno izlkn] lsokfuor iz/kku fyfid ds nkoksa ls lacaf/kr RkF;kRed fooj.kh fuEuor~ ik;h xbZ gS %&

¶54

¼i½ vkosnd Jh oklqnso izlkn dh izFke fu;qfDr fyfid ds in ij fnukad 31-01-1975 dks ¼iqujhf{kr osrueku 4000&6000@& :i;s esa½ gqbZ FkhA

¶55

¼ii½ vkosnd Jh izlkn dks fnukad 31-01-1985 ds izHkko ls izFke in lskiku ds fujh{kd eki ,oa rkSy ds in ij viqujhf{kr osrueku 850&1360@& :i;s ¼iqujhf{kr osrueku 5000&8000@&:i;s½ esa izksUufr nh tkuh gS blfy, bUgsa izFke ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr vuqekU; ugha gks ldrh gSA

¶56

¼iii½ ijarq Jh izlkn dh 24 o’kksZ dh lsok fnukad 31-01-1999 dks iwjk djus ds QyLo:i ,0lh0ih0 dh izHkkoh frfFk fnukad 09-08-1999 ds izHkko ls in lksiku ds osrueku ds rgr~ osrueku 6500&10500@& :i;s esa f}rh; ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr vuqekU; gksrh gSA

¶57

¼iv½ lkFk gh pwafd Jh izlkn fnukad 31-01-2005 dks ¼30½ rhl o’kkZs dh lsok iwjh fd;s gSa blfy, bUgsa ,e0,0lh0ih0 izksUufr dh izHkkoh frfFk fnuakd 01-01-2009

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 8/10

¶59

ds izHkko ls r`rh; ,e0,0lh0ih izksUufr osrueku ih0ch0&02 xszM is&5400@& :i;s esa vuwekU; gksrh gSA

¶60

¼v½ fcgkj d`f’k v/khuLFk lsok ds fofHkUu dfeZ;ksa] ftlesa eki ,oa rkSy laoxZ ds dehZ Hkh “kkfey gS] tks lh/kh fu;qfDr ls dk;Zjr jgs gS dks 5000&8000@& :i;s ls izFke ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr osrueku 6500&10500@& :i;s esa rFkk f}rh; ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr osrueku 10]000&15]200@& :i;s esa iznku dh tkrh gS blfy, vkosnd Jh izlkn dh f}rh; ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr osrueku 5000&8000@& :i;s ls lh/ks osrueku 1000&15200@& esa iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA

¶61

¼vi½ lkFk gh] pwafd Jh izlkn dh izFke fu;qfDr fujh{kd laoxZ ds ewy in ls u;wu in ,oa iqujhf{kr osrueku 4000&6000@& esa gqbZ gS blfy, bUgsa in lksiku ds osrueku ds rgr izFke ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr osrueku 5000&8000@& :i;s] f}rh; ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr osrueku 6500&10]500@& :i;s rFkk r`rh; ,e0,0lh0ih0 izksUufr osrueku ih0ch0&02 xszM is&5400@& :i;s esa gh vuqekU; gksrk gSA

¶62

¼vii½ Qyr% Jh izlkn dks f}rh; ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr fnukad 09-08-1999 ds izHkko ls osrueku 10000&15200@& :i;s esa rFkk r`rh; ,e0,0lh0ih0 izksUufr fnukad 01-01-2009 ds izHkko ls osrueku ih0ch0&3 xszM is&7600@& :i;s esa iznku djuk leqfpr ugha gks ldrk gSA

¶63

4- Qyr% izksUUfr lfefr ds fnukad 24-10-2018 dks lEiUu cSBd esa fd;s x;s vuq”kalk ds vkyksd esa lE;d :i ls fopkj djrs gq, fuEukfadar vkns”k fn;s tkrs gSa %&

¶64

¼i½ vkosnd Jh oklqnso izlkn] lsokufor iz/kku fyfid dks izFke in lksiku ds rgr~ fnukad 31-01-1985 ds izHkko ls fujh{kd eku&rSsy es in ij viqujhf{kr osrueku 850&1360@& ¼iqujhf{kr osrueku 1600&2780@& :i;s½ esa izksUufr iznku dh tkrh gSa bl izksUufr dk foŸkh; ykHk la;qDr df’k funs”kd&lg&fu;a=d] eki ,oa rkSYk] fcgkj] iVuk dh LFkkiuk esa fujh{kd] eki ,oa rkSy ds fjDr in ds fo:) iznku dh tk;sxhA ijUrq ftl vof/k ds fy, fujh{kd eki

¶65

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 9/10

¶66

,oa rksy dk in fjDr voLFkk esa miyC/k ugha ik;k tk;sxk ml vof/k ds fy, bl izksUufr dk foŸkh; ykHk la;qDr d`f’k funs”kd&lg&fu;a=.k] eki ,oa rkSy] fcgkj] iVuk ds Nk;kin ds izLrko ds vkyksd esa fu;ekuqlkj Nk;kin ds fo:) Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA

¶67

¼ii½ vkosnd Jh izlkn dks f}rh; ,0lh0ih0 izksUufr fnukad 09-08-1999 ds izHkko osrueku 6500&10500@& :i;s esa iznku dh tkrh gSA

¶68

¼iii½ vkosnd Jh izlkn dks r`rh; ,e0,0lh0ih0 izksUufr fnukad 01-01-2009 ds izHkko ls osrueku ih0ch0&02 xszM is&5400@& :i;s esa iznku dh tkrh gSA

¶69

¼iv½ lkFk gh ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd pwafd jktif=r in ds nkok@nkoksa ij fopkj djus ds fy, df’k funs”kd] fcgkj] iVuk l{ke izkf/kdkj ugha gS rFkk jkitf=r in ds nkok @ nkoksa ij fopkj djus ds fy, df’k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk gh l{ke izkf/kdkj gS blfy, ;fn vkosnd Jh oklqnso izlkn dk dksbZ Hkh nkok jktif=r in ij cukr gks rks oSlh fLFkfr esa muds jktif=r in ds nkok @ nkoksa ds laca/k esa xq.knks’k ds vk/kkj ij d`f’k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk] }kjk gh fopkj fd;k tk ldsxkA vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns”k dh izfr lHkh lacaf/krksa dks Hkh ns nh tk;A ”

¶70

14. On bare perusal of the impugned orders contained

¶71

in Annexures ‘27’ and ‘28’, this Court finds that in Annexure ‘27’, the respondents have made a categorical statement in the

¶72

following terms:-

¶73

“bl laca/k esa lfer }kjk leh{kksijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnd Jh izlkn ds mi;qZDr nkoksa dh vLohdr djrs gq, df’k funs”kky; ds ldkj.k vkns”k Kkikad &986 fnuakd 07-12-2018 }kjk Jh izlkn dks fu;euqlkj f}rh; foŸkh; mUu;u dh Lohdfr fnukad 09-081999 dks osrueku 6500&10500@& :i;s rFkk rrh; :ikUrfjr foŸkh; mUu;u dh Lohd`fr fnukad 01-01-2009 dks osrueku ih0ch0& 02 xszM is0& 5400@& :i;s esa iznku dh xbZ gSA”

¶74

Patna High Court CWJC No.778 of 2023(2) dt.11-04-2023 10/10

¶75

15. Similarly in Annexure ‘28’, the respondents have referred Annexure ‘4’ to say that the claim of the petitioner has already been considered by the Directorate of Agriculture vide reasoned order contained in Memo No. 986 dated 07.12.2018.

¶76

16. This Court finds that the order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure ‘4’) has attained finality. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not venture into the legality and validity of Annexures ‘27’ and ‘28’ of the writ application on the face of the fact that the petitioner has never questioned Annexure ‘4’ to the writ application.

¶77

17. This writ application is, thus, dismissed.

¶78

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶79

SUSHMA2/-

¶80

Basudeo Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudeo Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chandra Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Husneara Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Shobha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Ali Asgar Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Kundan Suman Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar