CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2374 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. TRILOKI NATH SINGH S/o- Late Bhagwat Deyal Singh, resident of Mohalla-Civil Lines Buxar, P.S.Buxar, District- Buxar ----------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar. 3. The Executive Officer, Buxar Nagar Parishad P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar. 4. Executive Board, Buxar nagar Parishad through Chairman, Buxar Nagar Parishad, P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar. 5. Deputy Secretary, Nagar Vikash Bibhag, Patna., District-Patna. 6. Finance Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. --------------------------- RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC No.2765 of 2005 HARDWAR RAM, son of Ramoo Ram, resident of village-Sariyan, P.O.-Korantadih, P.S.-Narahi, District-Balia (U.P.) at present Pratap Niwas, Civil lines, Buxar, P.S.-Buxar (T), District- Buxar ----------------------- PETITIONER Versus 7. THE STATE OF BIHAR 8. The District Magistrate, Buxar. 9. The Executive Officer, Buxar Nagar Parishad P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar. 10. Executive Board, Buxar nagar Parishad through Chairman, Buxar Nagar Parishad, P.S.Buxar, District-Buxar. 11. Deputy Secretary, Nagar Vikash Bibhag, Patna., District-Patna. Finance Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ---------------------- RESPONDENTS For The Petitioner :Mr. JAGDISH PRASAD I, Adv. For the Nagar Parishad: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv. For The State :(SC8) 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Jyoti Saran, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Two writ petitions have been heard together as they raise common issue(s) except that an additional claim towards salary has been set out in the C.W.J.C.No. 2765 of 2001 for the period 2.2.1996 to 2.8.1996 amounting to Rs. 7,332/-. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been gathered from C.W.J.C. No. 2374 of 2005 unless explained by specific reference to the second writ petition. Admitted position is that the admissible post retiral dues to which the petitioners were found entitled has since been paid and which have been placed on record of the proceedings by way of a counter affidavit filed on 25.4.2008 in the first writ petition and on 5.3.2009 in the second writ petition. Three issues have been raised by the petitioners in the two writ petitions namely revision/enhancement of pension in the light of the directives of the State Government as contained in letter dated 11.4.1991(Annexure-4) 3 addressed to the District Magistrates in relation to providing benefit of enhancement of pension to the employees of the Corporation and Notified Area Committee and the like. The petitioners also pray for payment of medical allowance in the light of the letter of the Additional Finance Commissioner dated 16.2.2002 placed at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. With reference to the gratuity calculation, it is further contended that the same has been made without adding the element of dearness allowance as being provided to the Employees of the State Government and admitted in the Finance Department resolution dated 22.12.1999 placed at Annexure-4 series to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Another issue that was raised was regarding untimely payment of the pension amount. An additional issue in the second writ relating to Hardwar Ram, was raised regarding non payment of salary for the period 2.2.1996 to 2.8.1996 to the tune of Rs. 7332/-. It is stated that the services of the petitioner Hardwar Ram was extended by the Nagar Parishad for the said period and thus he would be entitled for payment of his remuneration, 4 having discharged the duties under the direction of the authorities of the Nagar Parishad. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the Buxar Nagar Parishad opposing the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner submits that in so far as the claim of medical allowances is concerned, the same has only been extended to the employees of the State Government as is manifest from the letter dated 16.2.2002 of the Additional Finance Commissioner placed at Annexure-5 and that the same was never extended to the Nagar Parishad (urban local bodies). He thus submits that as the said facilities was neither extended to the Nagar Parishad nor is being extended to its employees by the Nagar Parishad, hence the same was never paid to the petitioner. In so far as the enhancement of pension in the light of the stipulations made in the letter dated 11.4.1991 (Annexure-4) is concerned it is stated that the enhancement is being carried out in the Nagar Parishad from time to time and as is evident from the pension fixation order. In so far as the grievance of untimely payment of pension is concerned. 5 Learned counsel submits that as the Nagar Parishad has been facing financial problems hence there has been some delay in disbursal of the pension amount but the same is being paid no sooner the fund is available with the Nagar Parishad. It is submitted that efforts would be made for timely payment of the pension. In so far as the claim of salary raised by Hardwar Ram is concerned, it is stated that the matter has been referred to the Board for taking appropriate decision in the matter. No explanation however was offered in relation to the non inclusion of the dearness allowance in the calculation of gratuity. It is manifest from the relevant extract of the Rules governing gratuity appended at Annexure-4 series of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the calculation of gratuity is governed under rules framed in this regard, applicable to the officers and staffs of Municipalities and Notified Area Committee bearing S.O. No. 1261 dated 17.8.1982 and which inter alia requires a meeting to be convened of the Municipal Commissioner(s) to determine the same, taking into consideration its financial position subject to a maximum 6 amount as applicable to a similar placed State Government employee. Learned counsel for the Nagar Parishad, however, could not inform this Court as to whether any decision has been taken in the light of the aforesaid Rules. The calculation of gratuity appended to the present proceedings clearly show that the same has been calculated on the basis of the basic pay. Having regard to the rival contentions I deem it appropriate to accord liberty to the petitioner(s) to raise their respective claim for gratuity in the light of the Circular of the State of Bihar as contained in resolution dated 22.12.1999 (Annexure-4 series) to the supplementary affidavit and in the light of the Rules governing the gratuity of Officers and Staffs of the Municipalities bearing S.O. No. 1261 dated 17.8.1982 before the Executive Officer and who shall consider and dispose of the same by a speaking order, within three months of receipt of such representation. In so far as claim of medical allowance is concerned, as no rules could be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the extension of the said 7 facility to the Municipalities, I do not consider it appropriate to direct the Municipality to incur the financial liability until a positive decision is taken in this context by the Municipality. In so far as the claim for enhancement of pension in the light of the Circular of the State Government as contained in Annexure-4 is concerned, as it is admitted by the learned counsel for the Municipality that the same is being followed by the Municipality, no further order needs to be passed. Lastly, as regarding the claim of salary of Hardwar Ram for the period 2.8.1996, the Municipality would take a positive decision expeditiously and preferably within three months of receipt this order keeping in mind that if the said employee has admittedly discharged duties for the period in question, under an order of a competent authority then he would be fully entitled to the remuneration for the said period. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction(s) aforesaid. Patna High Court/ Dated 22nd April,2010/ Bibhash/N.A.F.R. ( Jyoti Saran, J.)