IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9776 of 2010 AYODHYA PRASAD, S/O LATE MANGAL SAO, R/O ANAND BAZAR, DANAPUR CANTT. POLICE STATION DANAPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) BIHAR, PATNA, VIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DIVISION, ARRAH, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BHOJPUR. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DIVISION, BUXAR, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BUXAR ----------- 2 29.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No. XI appearing for the State as also the counsel appearing for the Accountant General. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation on 31st December, 1999 as a Senior Selection Grade Accounts Clerk from the office of the respondent no.6 the petitioner is not receiving the pension correctly as on the date of his superannuation he was getting the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which is the corresponding scale of unrevised pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750/-, however his pension has been fixed taking his pay scale as Rs. 4500-7000/- which according to the petitioner is not correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he was getting salary on the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- as on the date of his superannuation, the State is bound to calculate the pensionary benefits on the same scale as per the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules. Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No. XI appearing for the State submits that from perusal of the letter no. 8695 dated 17.10.2008 as contained in Annexure-3 it would appear that the revised scale of pay admissible to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was Rs. 4500-7000/-. He however submits that the claim of the petitioner that his correct pay scale is Rs. 5000- 8000/- on which he was getting his salary w.e.f. 01.01.1996 needs to be verified from the records. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner did not represent his grievances, however, for expeditious disposal of the pending claims as highlighted in this writ application, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no.6 with copy to the respondent nos. 3 & 4. In such view of the matter, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon consideration if the representation of the petitioner finds favour the authority concerned shall issue the revised sanction order for payment of pension and other pensionary benefits. It goes without saying that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)