IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.751 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, ACCOUNTS ADMINISTRATION- CUM-DIRECTOR, PROVIDENT FUND DIRECTORATE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 6. THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VIKASH BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE PROJECT COORDINATOR, TUBE WELL PROJECT, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR... (RESPONDENTS NO.; 1 TO 7) ...........................APPELLANTS Versus 1. RAMADHAR THAKUR SON OF LATGE RAM BARAN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SEMRA NIJAMAT, P.O. BISHUNPUR PATTI, P.S. SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR...... ( PETITIONER) RESPONDENT IST. PARTY 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DAROGA PRASAD RAI PATH, SRI KRISHNAPURI, PATNA. (RESPTS.8)...... RESPONDENT..2ND PARTY 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA (RESPONDENT-9) ............. RESPONDENT 3RD. PARTY. ------- 3 30-10-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. On going through the impugned order under appeal it is clear that the writ court was not given proper assistance and for that the District Provident Fund Officer was saddled with a cost of Rs.10,000/- Learned counsel for the appellant-State and its officials has also fairly submitted that all the relevant facts which are now available on record as annexures to this appeal were not brought before the writ court because the - 2 - instructions were lacking from the concerned respondents. It has been shown to us from orders of the concerned department contained in annexures 2 and 5 that the pay-scale of the writ petitioner and other similarly situated persons on the post of clerk was fixed in clear terms and the same has not been challenged or set aside. It has further been submitted that some employees had received salary in higher pay-scale on account of illegal and collusive actions and when the matter was raised by the department at the stage of fixation of their retrial benefits, this Court did not permit recovery. It has been submitted that in the case of the writ petitioner the issue is not of recovery but only of award of proper scale for which he did not apply till he was in service and has claimed higher scale by mixing up the issue with retiral benefits. We find that several relevant materials need to be considered in this case because the matter has financial implications not only in respect of the writ petitioner but several other similarly situated employees whose names are mentioned in annexure-2 to the memorandum of appeal. As the District Provident Fund Officer and other - 3 - respondents did not provide proper assistance to the writ court, we do not interfere with the award of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the concerned authority immediately and in any case within one month. However, so far as the order of the writ court on merits is concerned, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back in view of discussions and observations made above, particularly because several important facts and issues remain to be considered. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Since the matter relates to a retired employee, it is expected that it shall be given due priority by the writ court. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) Naresh ----