Patna High Court - Orders
Ram Janam Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 August, 2013
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 12124 of 2011
======================================================
1. Ram Janam Jha Late Jagan Ojha Ar Present Residing At Village-
Kanhaulli, Rajpur Tola, P.O And P.S-Bala, District-Muzaffarpur.
2. Sujeet Kumar Late Niteshwar Prasad Singh Resident Of Village Gokhula,
P.S-Birhima Bazar, District-Muzaffarpur.
3. Dhiraj Kumar Late Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh Ar Present Residing At
Village Jangli Mle Ashtan, P.S-Balughat, District-Muzaffarpur.
4. Sanjay Kumar Late Jawala Prasad At Present Posted As In The Officer
Of Executive Engineer, Bagmati Division(I), District-Sitamarhi.
5. Rakesh Kumar Raman. Late Harihar Lal, Resident Of Village-New
Dugarpur Colony Road No.3, Malighat, District-Muzaffarpur.
6. Jaishankar Pandey Late Naga Pandey At Present Posted As Accountants,
Tirhut Canal Division(I) District-Muzaffarpur.
7. Chitranjan Prasad Singh Late Triyug Singh At Present Posted As In The
Office Of Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division, Saralya, District-
Muzaffarpur.
8. Kumar Saket Verma. Late Pashupati Nath Verma. At Present Residing At
Sanpura, Kameshri Vihar, P.S-Ramana, District-Muzaffarpur.
9. Kameshwar Prasad Singh Late Devenarayan Prasad Singh Village-
Bladih, P.O-Raghunthpur, P.S-Saraiya, District-Muzaffarpur.
10. Shiv Shankar Sharma Late Hiralal Sharma At Present Residing At
Village Siktiyan, P.O-Khawaspur, P.S-Kishnpura, District-Siwan.
11. Khurshid Alam Shri Mohammad Yakub At Present Residing At
Village Chandwara Burban Road, P.S-Town, District-Muzaffarpur.
12. Pavitra Das Late Shankar Das Residing At Village Suggapahari, P.O-
Devalbari, P.S-Karmatand, District-Shivhar(Jharkhand)
13. Chandan Kumar Late Sarvedeshwar Prasad, Residing At Village
Shalesh Ashthan, P.O And P.S-Khabala Road, District-Muzaffarpur.
14. Pramod Prasad Late Nag Narayan Prasad At Present Residing At
Village Madhopur Anant, P.S-Kharwadurp, District-Saharsa.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt, Of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt, Of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department Govt, Of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Bihar,
Patna.
6. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division-I, Muzaffarpur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
7. The Executive Engineer, Water Wage Division, Muzaffarpur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
8. The Executive Engineer, Bagmati Division No.1,-Sitamarhi, District-
Sitamarhi.
9. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division, Ratwara, Muzaffarpur,
District-Muzaffarpur.
10. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division Saraiya, Muzaffarpur,
District-Muzaffarpur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12124 of 2011 (5) dt.06-08-2013
2
11. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division-1, Ramdayalu Nagar,
Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
12. The Executive Engineer, Bagmati Division, District-Sheohar.
13. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Sitamarhi, District-
Sitamarhi.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
M/s Siya Ram Shahi, Shally Kumari &
Ram Ganesh, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr Bhaskar Shankar, AC to GP 16
======================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 06-08-2013An interlocutory application has been filed for bringing on record subsequent events which is order of recovery. Instead of dealing with the interlocutory application, with consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of at this stage itself.
Petitioners were initially posted as Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department in different divisions. This was upon their regularization from work charged establishment. This fact is not in dispute. In 1981, Government took a decision to merge the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk which were made effective retrospectively from 01.05.1980. Separate notifications for different cadres were issued in this regard. Accordingly, upon merger of the two posts, petitioners were Patna High Court CWJC No.12124 of 2011 (5) dt.06-08-2013 3 designated as Accounts Clerk and were granted the said salary. Now, in view of Annexure 8 being Circular issued from the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar dated 03.08.2010, it is being said that the merger of post of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk were wrongly understood. It is pointed out that the 04th, the 05th & the 06th pay revision recommendations did not accept the said merger. They refer to the letter of the Finance Department dated 28.09.1999 (Annexure 7) which is virtually an order of demerger but a close reading of Annexure 7 would show that it has prospective application. This impugned Anneuxre 8 goes on to say that effectively the posts were not merged. The effect is that if this letter (Annexure 8) dated 03.08.2010 is to be given effect to then right from 1980, the pay fixation of the petitioners was wrongly done. This is what is under challenge.
In the counter affidavit, it is admitted by the State that by several judgments, this Annexure 8 dated 03.08.2010 has already been quashed by the Court. In Annexure 8 itself, in fact it is noticed that this Court, in several judgments, has already held that there was no demerger. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the merger was in relation to only Collectorate and Mufassil offices. I am unable to appreciate or accept the said contention. As noticed above, there were separate letters issued in Patna High Court CWJC No.12124 of 2011 (5) dt.06-08-2013 4 respect of different cadres where the posts of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk were there across the State. These posts, in whatever cadre there, were merged. Thereafter, they were sought to be demerged but that would only be prospective. Accordingly, the people, who were on merged posts, continued to remain as such. Thus, the contention in Annexure 8 or for that matter in the counter affidavit that petitioners' posts were not merged and they were wrongly treated as Accounts Clerk, which was the designation upon merger, cannot be accepted. It may be noted that all along the Department accepted the position of merger. Whenever attempts were made to treat them as demerged, Court struck down such actions including the impugned Annexure 8. In the counter affidavit, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sinchai Kamgar Union & Ors -Versus- State of Bihar & Ors being CWJC No 8184 of 1988 decided on 23rd April, 2003. That is Annexure A to the counter affidavit. I have gone through the said judgment. It has no application to the present case. The judgment clearly notices that the petitioners sought direction to grant them the scale admissible to Accounts Clerk in the Collectorate and other Mufassil offices. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners in the writ petition was parity of pay scale. That was negatived by Patna High Court CWJC No.12124 of 2011 (5) dt.06-08-2013 5 the Court. There was no question of merger, demerger and pay fixation consequent thereto. That case is not deciding the present issue nor is an authority for the issue in question.
In view of the aforesaid and in view of the fact that impugned Annexure 8 has already been set aside by this Court, as admitted in the counter affidavit itself, I have no option but to allow this writ petition and set aside Annexure 8 and all consequential actions thereto. In other words, petitioners would be treated as Accounts Clerk throughout with all consequential benefits. Their pay scales are not liable to be refixed nor any recovery is permissible much less after their retirement. The order, as appended in the interlocutory application directing recovery of money, has, thus, to be set aside and any money already recovered on this account has to be refunded to the petitioners forthwith. Petitioners would be entitled to be paid on basis of Accounts Clerk and their retiral dues also to be calculated accordingly.
The writ petition, with the aforesaid
observations and directions, is allowed.
M.E.H./- (Navaniti Prasad Singh)