Ram Narayan @ Ram Narayan Pandit vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—In the instant writ application, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ directing the concerned respondents to fix the post retrial benefits of the petitioner including the pension payable to him in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to which the petitioner is entitled on the ground that he was posted and working as a Gate Operator. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the concerned respondents to give the arrears of pay to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and to fix final pension of the petitioner in the aforesaid scale and disburse the same with immediate effect along with all arrears.

The petitioner was originally appointed on the post of Khalasi initially in the office of Executive Engineer, Hatia Dam Division-1, Ranchi where he joined on 10th May 1962. In the year 1970, services of the petitioner as well as several others were taken over by the Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Bihar. On 30.4.1975 he was promoted to the post of Gate Operator-cum-Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 180-242. He served on the aforesaid post till the date of his retirement on 30.6.2002. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000 only which was the pay scale of the persons employed on the post of Khalasi, whereas the pay scale of Gate Operator, according to the petitioner, stood after revision in 1981 at Rs. 4000-6000.

Referring to another employee namely, Bhubneshwar Mahato who was (sic) provisional pension and even provisional pension has been withheld for the last several years.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 and 7 denying and disputing the claim of the petitioner. While admitting the fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as Khalasi and was later, given the post of Gate Operator and that, he had superannuated while working in the post of Gate Operator, the contrary stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Khalasi which carried the revised pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 and since the scale of Gate Operator after revision in the year 1996 was fixed at Rs. 2650-4000, the same was fixed for the petitioner and as on 1.1.1996, the petitioner''s pay was fixed at Rs. 4000+272 (RPP). The petitioner is therefore, not entitled to any higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as erroneously claimed by him. In paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit, it has been explained that reference to another employee namely, Bhubneshwar Mahato as made by the petitioner for claiming equal status, is wrong as because, the said Bhubneshwar Mahato was appointed to the post of Electrician Grade-II and his scale of pay was fixed in accordance with the scale payable to the Electrician Grade-II and not for Gate Operator, though subsequently, he was allotted the work of Gate Operator.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the annexures, I find that admittedly, the petitioner was though employed initially as Khalasi, but in course of time, he was promoted to the post of Gate Operator and placed in the Department of Public Health Engineering. From the annexure-3 which is the petitioner''s promotion letter, it transpires that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Gate Operator cum Guard in the scale of pay of Rs. 180-242. His initial basic pay scale was Rs. 180 per month, which was increased by 12% and consequently, his basic scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 202/- from the date of joining on the promoted post. It appears however from the communication made by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department to the Superintending Engineer that the petitioner was though promoted to the post of Gate Operator, but he was functioning as Spiel Way Gate Operator and the nature of work performed by him was totally different from Sleuce Way Gate Operator. The difference has been explained in the context of the fact that the Sleuce Way Gate was operated by Electricians and the persons who operate such Gates are drawn from the Electrical Section-II of the Irrigation Department. It also appears that pursuant to the aforesaid communication, made by the Executive Engineer, the Superintending Engineer had also confirmed that the petitioner was in fact, performing the functions of Sleuce Way Gate Operator and the nature of work performed by him was the same as performed by other Gate Operator namely, Bhubneshwar Mahato, therefore the pay scale of the petitioner should be equal to the petitioner given to Bhubneshwar level, at par with the other Gate Operators citing example of co-employee Bhubneshwar Mahato. Respondents have explained that the other Gate Operators employed in the same Department along with the petitioner were in fact appointed as Electrician Grade-II and at a higher pay scale and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity in the pay scale with Bhubneshwar Mahato.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any reasonable basis in the petitioner''s claim that his pay should be fixed with retrospective effect from the date prior to his superannuation and he be paid the arrears of salary at the same scale as was paid to Electrician Grade-II. As such, the petitioner''s prayer for fixing his pay at the demanded higher scale is not sustainable and therefore, cannot be allowed.

As regards the petitioner''s grievance that his pension has not been fixed and that though provisional pension used to be given to him, but such provisional pension has also been stopped for the past several months, the respondents authorities are directed to fix the petitioner''s pension, in accordance with the rules applicable to him and to disburse the same to the petitioner along with arrears which have accrued till date, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.