IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2405 of 2008 PRABHAKAR PANDEY, son of late Keshava Pandey, resident of village Gauripundah, P.S. Fathua, district-Patna. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Sri Palat Mehra, the Chief Town Planner, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Smt. Vandana Preyashi, the Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Patna. …..Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Piyush Lal, A.C. to A.A.G-I. For Opposite Party No.3: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A.-6 ------------- 05- 12.1.2011 This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.13438 of 2000 (Prabhakar Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar and others), for the alleged non-implementation of the judgment dated 19.1.2007 (Annexure-1), whereby direction was issued to opposite party no.2 (The Chief Town Planner, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna), to consider the grievances of the petitioner regarding grant of pay-scale and such other matters to be disposed of by a reasoned order, and the consequential benefits in money terms shall be paid by the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). The petitioner’s representation has been disposed of by the order dated 2 13.6.2007 (Annexure-4), read with the order dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure-A), wherein it has in substance been held that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay-scale he has prayed for. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this application may be indicated. The petitioner was appointed in the services of the State Government on 24.11.1969 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), as Draftsman Grade-II, in the pay-scale of Rs.115-225/-. He was confirmed on the post on 16.8.1972. By order dated 8.6.1973 (Annexure- 3 to the writ petition), the State Government placed his services at the disposal of the Board. By order dated 20.5.1975 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), the Board temporarily promoted the petitioner as Draftsman Grade-1 in the pay-scale of Rs.296-423/-. The petitioner superannuated from the services of the Board with effect from 31.12.1998, while functioning as Draftsman Grade-1. The Board forwarded the petitioner’s service record to the State Government for post- retirement benefits along with its communication dated 6.7.2000 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). This was followed by order dated 15.9.2000 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition), whereby the State Government ordered that the petitioner’s lien with the State Government stood terminated in terms of rule 68 of the Bihar Service Code and, therefore, 3 the Board shall pay the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner. The same was challenged in the present writ petition which was allowed, and it was held that the petitioner’s lien with the State Government continued till his superannuation. As to the petitioner’s claim for the unrevised pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300/- with effect from 1.1.1986, followed by the replacement pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- with effect from 1.1.1996, till his superannuation, opposite party no.2 was directed to consider and dispose of the issue by a reasoned order, inter alia, after considering the factual aspect whether or not Safiruddin Ansari and Naresh Prasad Sharma, both Draftsman Grade-1 in the services of the Board, were given the same pay-scales on their representations. It was also stated in our order that the issue shall be determined by opposite party no.2, and the consequential money benefits shall be paid by the Board for the reason that the petitioner superannuated while serving the Board. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The cause shown by opposite party no.2 is to the effect that the petitioner has been denied the unrevised pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300/- with effect from 1.1.1986, and the replacement scale of Rs.5500-9000/- with effect from 4 1.1.1996, which were granted to Safiruddin Ansari and Naresh Prasad Sharma because they were dissimilarly circumstanced for the reason that they were all through employees of the Board, whereas the petitioner has all through remained an employee of the State Government and was on deputation to the Board till his superannuation. It is further stated in the cause shown by opposite party no.2 that similarly circumstanced persons as the petitioner in the State Government have been denied the pay-scales prayed for. We entirely disagree with the reason given by opposite party no.2 while denying the benefit of the pay-scales in question to the petitioner. None of the allegedly similarly circumstanced persons of the Bihar Government as the petitioner were sent on deputation to the Board, who all through served the State of Bihar. How are they similarly circumstanced in a situation where the petitioner was on deputation to the Board from 8.6.1973 till his superannuation. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner cannot be treated to be similarly circumstanced as the other persons who all through continued with the State Government. Furthermore, Safiruddin Ansari and Naresh Prasad Sharma, both draftsman Grade-1 in the services of the Board, were discharging same and/or similar duties and functions as the petitioner and have admittedly been 5 paid the pay-scales of Rs.1400-2300/- with effect from 1.1.1986, and the replacement pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- with effect from 1.1.1996. Therefore the petitioner and these two persons are similarly circumstanced persons. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the said pay scales from the corresponding dates. 4. In the result, this application is disposed of with the direction to opposite party no.3 (The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna), to ensure payment of the differential amount of, salary as per the aforesaid pay-scales and, the revise post-retirement benefits, accordingly. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% (six) from the dates the amounts became due till the date of payment. We are informed at the Bar that the orders of issuance of authorization slip have to be passed by the State Government. Let the same be done expeditiously. The apportionment of the money claims payable to the petitioner shall abide the directions incorporated in the judgment dated 19.1.2007, passed in C.W.J.C. No.13438 of 2000. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/