IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4279 of 2006 DWIJENDRA PATI SHARMA Son of Late Chandrika pati, Pathak, resident of milind Kuttir, East Boring Canal Road, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , through the Secretary, Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary Information and Public Relation Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Information & Public Relation Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna ----------- 3 3.12.2010 Learned counsel for the State states that he has received instruction in the matter. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard for disposal at this stage itself. Petitioner superannuated on 31.5.1998 as Joint Director, Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Bihar. At the time of superannuation, his promotion as Joint Director with effect from 6.7.1988 was ad hoc. It is not in dispute that the promotion was due and has been sent for approval, which apparently was approved. It is apparent from final gradation list of Information Service Officers ,as published on 19.6.1998 , that the petitioner was confirmed in Senior Selection Grade with effect from 6.7.1988, which is the same as the pay scale of Joint Director. It appears that subsequently the State decided to reduce the number of posts. The post now being made need basis consequently the number 2 of post of Joint Directors were reduced. This was done long after the petitioner superannuation on 31.5.1998. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 7, dated 23.8.2004, in which it is stated that there were only three posts of Joint Director and as such the petitioner would be treated to be a Deputy Director at the time of superannuation and paid accordingly. Thus, as pensionary benefit gets seriously affected by reduction in the basic pay scale and the consequential order is Annexure 9 showing petitioner as Deputy Director. Learned counsel for the State is not able to controvert this basic fact but the State has right to reduce the number of post with consequential. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the proposition that the State is the final arbitral so far as the number of officer and the posts it require but by this process of reduction, it cannot adversely affect an employee demoting him. This specially so when an employee had already superannuated and on basis of Last Pay Certificate was drawing his pension. His pension cannot be then reduced. Thus, in principle the action taken under Annexure 7 to reduce the number of posts cannot be questioned its affect on petitioner. The petitioner’s last posting before superannuation cannot be reduced or down graded to the Deputy Director from Joint Director. I, accordingly, allow this application and quash Annexures 7 and 9 to that effect. Petitioner would be entitled to draw his pensionary benefit on basis of petitioner’s Last Pay 3 Certificate. Petitioner would also be entitled to the revised pensionary benefits on that basis also. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)