IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8756 of 2003 ABDUL QUDDUS; son of late Md. Ishaque, resident of village Mohammadpur P.S. Sakri, District Madhubani. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 2. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Madhubani. 4. the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Madhubani. ------------ For the petitioner :-Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur For the State :-Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, A.C.to G.P.6 For the Zila Parishad :-Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. *********** 14 22.12.2009 The writ petition had been filed for payment of the balance amount of contributory provident fund (hereinafter referred to as C.P.F.)of the petitioner together with interest and gratuity amount of Rs. 89,397/-, arrears of salary for the period 1.3.1989 to 12.2.2001 in the Super Time Selection scale having been promoted vide memo No.16 dated 10.8.1999 (Annexure-1) and the pay fixation order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure-1/A). The petitioner also claims interest. During the pendency of the writ petition three cheques were handed over to the counsel for the petitioner in the following manner (a) 2 Rs.18,467.72 being balance amount of C.P.F. (b)Rs. 32191 being amount of gratuity and (c) Rs. 79,963/- being amount towards leave encashment. The said position is noted in the order dated 5.5.2005 Learned counsel submits that the said payments have been made on the basis of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee recommendations whereas the petitioner at the time of superannuation was drawing his salary in the super time scale on the basis of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee and thus the retiral benefits should accordingly be recalculated on the basis of last salary drawn by the petitioner and arrears be paid. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed in this Court on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 5.10.2009 enclosing letter of the respondent No.3, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer in which he has mentioned that in absence of funds to be made available by the State Government, the revised pay scale as per recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committees report could not be provided to its employees. It has been mentioned that no sooner the funds are made 3 available the benefits would be provided to all the employees. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 7.10.2009, a response was filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 on 26.10.2009 on the aspect of the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Committee. It was stated that an order had been issued by the Chief Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Madhubani bearing Memo No. 141 dated 15.10.1996 (Annexure-E of the said affidavit) and all the employees were drawing their salary in the light of the said recommendations. It is stated that in the year, 2000 a resolution was issued by the Rural Development Department of the Government of Bihar bearing No. 1768 dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure-B to the second supplementary counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4) by which the State Government issued restraint on the implementation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee’s recommendation and further directed to recover any payment made under such recommendation from the employees. It is stated that on the basis of resolution of the State Government dated 24.4.2000, the respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Development 4 Commissioner, Madhubani issued orders bearing memo No. 42 dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure C to the 2nd supplementary counter affidavit) for stopping the payment of salary etc. on the basis of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Committee and for recovery of the amounts from its employees. It has thus been stated that the employees of the Zila Parishad, Madhubani have been provided benefits of the 5th Pay scale only up to 14.6.2000 i.e. date of the order issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner placed at Annexure-C of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is further stated that even in the case of the eleven employees whose name has been referred to in paragraph 9 of the reply of the petitioner filed on 31.8.2009 their payments have been made on the basis of recommendations of the 4th Pay Revision Commission. The respondent no. 3 nevertheless through letter dated 22.10.2009 enclosed with the affidavit has admitted implementation of the 5th Pay Revision in the Zila Parishad with effect from financial year 2008-09. Upon consideration of the arguments and the materials placed on record of the 5 proceedings, the following aspects come into light namely (a) the recommendations of the 5th Pay committee report was initially implemented in the Zila Parishad, Madhubani with effect from 1996 under the order No.141 dated 15.10.1996 (Annexure-E to the affidavit filed on 26.10.2009). (b) the implementation was directed to be stopped under the resolution of the Rural Development Department containing letter No. 1768 dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure-B to second supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4) (C) pursuant to the said directives, the respondent No.3 issued order bearing no. 42 dated 14.6. 2000 restraining the payment of salary to its employees under the revised pay scale and issuing orders of recovery (Annexure-C to the second supplementary counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4).(d) With effect from 14.6.2000 the employees of the Zila Parishad have been drawing his salary in the pay scale as recommended under the 4th Pay Revision Commission. (e) The recommendations of 5th Pay Revision has been implemented with effect from the financial year 2008-09 in the light of the order of the State Government and the employees 6 are drawing salary in the revised scale from the financial year 2008-09. Having given anxious consideration to the issue this Court is of the opinion that the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Revision Committee was not exclusively dependent the upon the financial condition of the Zila Parishad concerned. It may have been one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the State Government in its Rural Development Department while considering the issue of granting permission to the concerned Zila Parishad. There is not a single document which has been brought on record of the proceeding to show whether any such permission had been sought by the respondent No.3, the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Engineer of the Zila Parishad as desired under the resolution dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure-B in its paragraph 7). On the other hand, respondent No.3 while issuing the orders dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure-C) has blindly implemented the directives contained in paragraph 7 of the said resolution. It is also an admitted position that the said recommendations have been implemented in the Zila Parishad albeit with effect from the 7 financial year, 2008-09 and the matching grants are being received from the State Government with effect from the financial year, 2008-09. The 5th Pay Revision Committee recommendations came into effect under the resolution No. 602 dated 18.12.1989 with effect from 1.1.1986. The resolution of the Rural Development Department dated 24.4.2000, manifests that the Zila Parishad concerned were required to obtain permission from the State Government after enclosing their budget and their income expenditure statement and the State Government in its Rural Development Department would consider the entire matter and pass necessary orders on the issue of its implementation. As observed, no such steps appears to have been taken by the authorities of the Zila Parishad, Madhubani. At least no such document was brought on record to show whether any such permission had been sought by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Madhubani leaving its employees in adverse and less fortunate situation. In the circumstances that the matching 8 grant was to be provided by the State Government to effect the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, it is not understandable as to why the authorities of the Zila Parishad, Madhubani never took any positive steps to seek the required permission. The very fact that the recommendations have been implemented with effect from financial year 2008-09, explains that no such effort was made by the persons occupying the post of respondent No.3 during period preceeding the financial year 2008-09 and which perhaps seems to be one of the reasons for non-implementation of the recommendations in the Zila Parishad Madhubani. The implementation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee’s recommendation being effective from 1.1.1986 and having been admittedly implemented though intermittently in the Zila Parishad, Madhubani until 14.6.2000 and thereafter from financial year 2008-09, the case of the petitioner and the likes requires consideration. In the circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.3 the Deputy Development 9 Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Madhubani to seek ratification of its decision contained in Memo no. 141 dated 15.10.1996 (Annexure-E to the affidavit filed on 26.10.2009) to implement the recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Commission as required under paragraph 7 of the resolution dated 24.4.2000 of the State Government within a period of six weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to add that the State Government would be under a duty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on such request in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter and in case State Government comes to a conclusion that it was not possible to accept the request made by the Zila Parishad, Madhubani, then same has to be rejected by a reasoned and speaking order. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )