IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1486 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 4357 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.8399 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.8400 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1486 of 2010 =================================================== Lallan Prasad Sinha .F.I.E., IASH, s/o Purnendu Narayan Sinha, r/o Rajiva Sadan, 67/E, Road No.11, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Patna …………… Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Department of Energy, through the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna ………….. Respondents. ================================================== APPEARANCE For the Appellant : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, AC to SC III ================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 24/9/2010 I.A. No.8399 of 2010 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 11 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the 2 case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. LPA. No.1486 of 2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 29th July 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC. No.4357 of 2010. The appellant – writ petitioner is the Managing Director in the Bihar State Hydro Electronic Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). He has been functioning as the Managing Director since 30th September 1999. In the year 2006 he reached the age of superannuation. At the time of superannuation, he was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs.18400-22400/-. On his superannuation, under notification dated 31st August 2006 issued by the State of Bihar, Energy Department, he was re-employed for a period of one year from 1st September 2006 to 31st August 2007 on condition that his last pay and allowances would be protected. On expiry of the re- employment of one year, the said arrangement was continued under notifications dated 21st August 2007, 1st September 2008 and 6th August 2009. By further notification dated 30th March 2010, he has been again re-employed for a period of six months from 1st April 2010 or till the regular appointment of a Managing Director, whichever be the earlier. In the meantime, the State Government has published advertisement on 7th August 2009 inviting 3 applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Managing Director in the Corporation. The eligibility being the person of the age of not less than 45 years and not more than 65 years in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.18400-22400/-. The appellant filed the above CWJC. No.4357 of 2010 for two reliefs. First, the appellant demanded arrears of salary on the ground that his pay was not fixed in the scale of pay corresponding the pre-revised scale of Rs.18400-22400/-. Second, he demanded that in terms of the advertisement if a person of the age of 65 years is eligible to be considered for appointment as Managing Director, he be allowed to continue as Managing Director till he attains the age of 65 years. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Managing Director of the Corporation along with all other eligible candidates. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Giri has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the claim of the appellant for revised scale of pay corresponding the pay scale of Rs.18400-22400/-. He has also submitted that the appellant, who is 64 years of age and has gained experience as Managing Director of the Corporation for more than 20 years, should not be asked to compete with other applicants as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. 4 We are of the opinion that the appellant’s claim for revised scale of pay corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale of Rs.18400-22400/- is based on misconceived notion of the terms of his re- employment. It may be noted that the re-employment of the appellant was clearly on condition that his last pay was protected. During the period of re-employment, he would continue to receive the pay which he received on the date of his superannuation. The appellant accepted the said terms of appointment made from time to time. The appellant, therefore, cannot now be permitted to claim the benefit of the revision of pay scale corresponding to pay scale of Rs.18400-22400. As to the right to continue till he attains the age of 65 years, we may observe that the re-employment is not a condition of service. Once the appellant reached the age of superannuation, he cannot claim continuance as a matter of right. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant’s case may be considered along with other eligible candidates. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No.8400 of 2010 stands disposed of. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) 5