IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.187 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWASHRAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 2. JOINT SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR VISHWESHRAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 3. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHEWASHARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 4. CHIEF ENGINEER (DESIGN) BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWASHRAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDING DESIGN, CIRCLE NO. 1, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BAILEY ROAD,PATNA ………………………………APPELLANTS Versus 1. BALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE JAI MANGAL SINGH RETIRED FROM POST OF SENIOR GRADE DRAFTMAN, BUILDING DESIGN, CIRCLE NO.1, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR, VISHWASHRAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA AND AT PRESENT RESIDING AT GOPAL SINGH NEPALI NAGAR, ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S.- DIGHA, DISTRICT- PATNA 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL MARGH, PATNA ………………………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellants :- Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, G.A-6 Shashikant Singh, AC to GA-6 For the Respondent :- Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi, Advocate ----------------------- 6 19/11/2009 Heard the parties. The State of Bihar and its officials have preferred this letters patent appeal against the order of the writ court dated 15.2.2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 has been allowed and he has been held entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 as revised scale with effect from 1.1.1996. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no doubt the writ petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2001 from the post of Senior Grade 2 Drafts Man and earlier by order dated 2.7.1999 (Annexure-5 to the LPA) he was held entitled to revise pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 but in the same order dated 2.7.1999 there is a provision in paragraph 2 that if during verification by the Finance Department the pay is found to be excess then the same will be realized. This was highlighted to show that the revised pay-scale for the post in question was yet to be verified by the Finance Department. Next, our attention was drawn to order of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar dated 28.7.2005, contained in Annexure-10 to the LPA. By that order the Government of Bihar, considering the recommendations of the Fitment Committee as well as demand of the concerned employees, finally decided to accept the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for the Senior Grade Drafts Man with a clarification that promotion to higher pay-scale can be granted to such Drafts Man only who possess qualification of Diploma in Engineering. In the order under appeal the learned Single Judge has noted that for the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 the qualification is Matric plus Diploma and thereafter, it has been observed that the petitioner had this qualification and considering every thing he was allowed promotion. Before us, it has been conceded on behalf of writ petitioner/respondent herein that he does not hold 3 Diploma in Engineering. In the light of facts highlighted on behalf of appellants, it has been submitted that the appellants have issued proper orders in favour of the petitioner from time to time including a decision according him, the pay- scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996, which fact is not denied and the appellants are aggrieved because with effect from 1.1.1996 the respondent has been allowed a pay-scale to which he is legally not entitled as per policy decision of the State Government apparent from Annexure-10 which has been followed consistently in all cases of similarly situated persons while fixing their pay-scale with effect from 1.1.1996. On behalf of respondent it was submitted that even if his pay-scale is fixed at as Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996 the practical effect would be that he will get same salary at the time of retirement which he got by virtue of Annexure-5. It was further submitted that many persons including his juniors have been given benefit of ACP by way of higher pay-scale with effect from 9.8.1999, a date on which the writ petitioner was also in service. In reply learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that if ACP has been wrongly denied to the writ petitioner, that would be a separate cause of action 4 which may be raised by the petitioner through representation or otherwise and it shall be examined by the appellants in accordance with law. In view of the facts available on record and noticed above, we find that the respondent was entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 by way of revised pay- scale on 1.1.1996 and the appellants were entitled to make such correction in view of power reserved by them in the order contained in Annexure-5. In that view of the matter the judgment and order under appeal is modified by holding that respondent will be entitled not to the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 as held by the writ court but only to the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996. This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. It is made clear that if the respondent has not been given the benefit of even the scale of Rs. 5000- 8000 for determining his retiral benefits etc, the same should be done expeditiously and preferably within three months. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin