Dhruv Narayan Tiwary vs State of Bihar & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State of Bihar; State of Jharkhand and Accountant General.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“(I) To be pleased to fix the amount of permanent pension of the petitioner which the petitioner is entitled to after fixation of pay scale as per Rs.

2200-4000 since 01.03.1993.

(II) To be pleased to pay the entire amount of arrears of pension and full pension as per new pay scale of the petitioner, whereas only the provisional

pension of 90% has been paid to the petitioner. The provisional Pension is being paid to the petitioner @ Rs. 1661/- from the date of his retirement.

(III) To be pleased to pay the amount of gratuity of the petitioner due before the Respondents.

(IV) To be pleased to pay the differences of salary since 1.3.1989 to 31.3.1993 for which the petitioner is found entitled to.

(V) To be pleased to pay the amount of earned leave of 240 days of the petitioner.

(VI) To be pleased to direct the respondents Authority to exempt the petitioner from the departmental Hindi noting and drafting examination as per

Govt. circular No. 12-R-1-5040-73K-11925 dated 21.6.78 attaining the age of above 50 years which benefit has been given to the similarly situated

person of the department namely Shri Sant Prasad Tripathi and to fixed the pay scale of the petitioner and paid the dues accordingly.

(VII) To be pleased to grant statutory as well as penal interest over the entire dues of the petitioner and may be pleased to grant any other relief or

reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to.â€​

The petitioner had earlier moved the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 419 of 1997 followed by M.J.C. No. 220 of 1999 and thereafter again in C.W.J.C. No.

15797 of 2007 for the relief sought for in the present case. However, by order dated 25.08.2014 in C.W.J.C. No. 15797 of 2007, the Court had

categorically dismissed the writ application seeking the relief that he may be allowed to draw a sum of Rs. 3500/- as salary holding that the last pay

drawn would be Rs. 2900/- and not Rs. 3500/- and also noting that authorisation and revision of pension had been done accordingly and nothing more

was required to be done. It was also observed that if any bona fide claim remains, the petitioner was free to demand the same before the Competent

Authority. Thus, as far as the claim for pay of Rs. 3500/-is concerned, the matter had been considered and rejected by the Court under order dated

25.08.2014 in C.W.J.C. No. 15797 of 2007. However, the Court finds that in the present writ petition also, the entire basis of the claim of the

petitioner is on his pay being considered to be Rs. 3500/- and thereafter for his pensionary benefits to be calculated. This is clear from the statement

made in paragraph no. 9 of the writ application, which reads as under:

“That the petitioner states that page no. 24 of his service book dated 14.10.1985 shows that his basic pay was Rs. 1600 from 20-08-1985. It further

shows that according to revised scale the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 3125/- as basic pay on 20.08.1988 which was approved by the District Medical

Officer. Since 1.1.1986 petitioner got the scale of pay of Rs. 2900/- which was increased @3500/-since 31.3.1993, which is apparent from the service

book of the petitioner but the respondents denied the same pay scale of Rs. 3500/- and wrongly stated in the Counter affidavit and supplementary

counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 15797/07 which was decided by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated-25.08.2014. Due to mistake on the part of

petitioner’s lawyer reply/rejoinder to the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has not been filed and the earlier writ application

was disposed of only on the assertion/statement of the respondents although actually part payment has only been made to the petitioner and rest

amount is due before the Department. It is stated and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- since 1.3.1993. It

is evident from letter no. 300 dated 2/4/1998 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, at Patna.â€​

Further, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, it transpires that the petitioner has been filing representation before the

authorities as late as in the year 2015 for making payment on the basis of treating his basic pay as Rs. 3500/-.

The Court finds such conduct of the petitioner to be lacking bona fide and also contemptuous, inasmuch as, a claim, which has been rejected by a

judicial order, is still being raised before the authorities after the decision of the Court.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

In view thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

However, the Court would only indicate that in terms of the orders passed by the authorities themselves relating to payment to be made to the

petitioner on the basis of his pay being Rs. 2900/-, if anything further remains to be paid, as appears from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the

respondents, the same be paid to him latest within two months from today.