IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14474 of 2004 SACHIDANAND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 19/ 31.03.2010 Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned Additional Advocate General No. 2 for the State and Mr. L.P. K. Rajgrihar for the Accountant General. The only issue which requires determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to the revised pay-scale of Rs. 6500 to 10500/- or was rightfully granted the pay-scale of Rs. 5500/- to 9000/-. The facts of the matter in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Office Assistant in the Nalanda Medical College, Patna on 27.1.1970 while under the private management. He also got promotion in the same condition to the post of Administrative Officer on 31.8.1978 with effect from 1.9.1978. The college in question was taken over by the Government with all assets and liabilities with effect from 1.1.1980 vide notification dated 24.12.1979. The petitioner at the relevant time was drawing his salary in the scale of Rs. 510/- to 1155/- before the take over and since after take over also he was drawing the same salary. Subsequently with enforcement of the 4th pay revision with effect from 1.4.1981 the salary of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs. 1000/- to 1820/-. It is stated that the petitioner also passed the Hindi Noting as well as the Accounts Examination. With advent - 2 - of the 5th pay-revision implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the scale of the petitioner was revised to Rs. 2200/- to 4000/- with periodical increment. Subsequently under the Fitment Committee report, another pay-revision was effected and the pay-scale was revised to Rs. 6500/- to 10500/- with effect from 1.1.1996 with stagnation increment of Rs. 200/- (Annexure-2) and which was confirmed under the letter dated 15.4.2000 (Annexure-3). In the light of the fixation as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 a permanent pay-slip is said to have been issued (Annexure-4). It is stated that the salary of the petitioner was stopped from the month of January, 2000 until March, 2001 and no salary was paid to him. Subsequently, the salary of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs. 5500/- to 9000/- under the letter dated 28.3.2001 (Annexure-5) with stipulation that the excess salary drawn by him would be recovered in installments. The petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.7.2004 while drawing his salary in the scale of Rs. 5500/- to 9000/-. His pension was fixed on the basis of the last salary drawn. The order dated 28.3.2001 as contained in Annexure-5 fixing the pay-scale of the petitioner at Rs. 5500/- to 9000/- was never challenged by the petitioner and has not even been challenged in the present writ petition. It is after the superannuation of the petitioner that the present writ petition was filed for a direction to the authorities of the State Government for fixation of the pension on the basis of the pay-slip as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition under which salary was fixed in - 3 - the scale of Rs. 6500/- to 10500/-. A further prayer was made for payment of other retiral dues as admissible to the petitioner and arrears of salary for the period January, 2000 to March, 2001 on the said basis. An interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 3085 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner for amending the prayer portion of the writ petition incorporating the relief for counting his service rendered under the private management and for time bound promotion and for fixation of his pension on the basis thereof. The interlocutory application containing reliefs which are dis-similar to the issue raised in the writ petition, the amendment sought would not be permitted to be espoused in the present writ petition. However the petitioner, if so advised, may raise the same by way of an appropriate application before an appropriate forum. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, the only relief claimed by the petitioner is that his pension should be fixed in the scale of Rs. 6500/- to 10500/- and the arrears of salary which was stopped should be paid to him. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 and which explains the entire situation. It was stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer under the private management in the pay-scale of Rs. 510/- to 1155 with effect from 1.9.1978 and continued to draw the same scale even after the take over. It is thereafter stated that although the prescribed pay-scale of Administrative Officer (Non-Medical) - 4 - was only Rs. 455/- to 840/- but under the recommendation of 4th pay revision the same was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 880/- to 1510 with effect from 1.4.1981. It is stated that the petitioner got his scale fixed at Rs. 1000/- to 1820/- with enforcement of the 5th pay revision recommendation and on the said basis the scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2000/- to 3800/- in place of 1640/- to 2900/- as approved by the Committee. It is stated that according to the Fitment Committee report effective from 1.1.1996 the scale of Administrative Officer (Non-Medical) was approved at Rs. 5500/- to 9000/- but the same was incorrectly fixed at Rs. 6500/- to 10500/- in case of the petitioner. It is also stated that the recovery effected was in the light of the objection raised by the Accountant General. In so far as the pay-fixation of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 6500/- to 10500/- vide Annexure- 2 is concerned, it is contended that the same was rejected by the Fitment Appellate Committee as mentioned in the Health Department letter no. 549(1) dated 6.11.2004 as contained in Annexure-C to the said affidavit and in which a clear direction was issued for fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 5500 to 9000/- with effect from 1.1.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily centered his argument in the light of the resolution dated 30.12.1981 of the Finance Department placed at Annexure-11 of the reply to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel sought to demonstrate that people belonging to same category were accorded differential - 5 - treatment. It was further contended that whereas the post of Administrative Officer in Nalanda Medical College being the college in which the petitioner was working, carried a pay-scale of Rs. 455/- 840/-, the Administrative Officer in Patliputra Medical College drew his pay-scale at Rs. 580/-840/- and that of S.K. Medical College was drawing a scale of Rs. 510/- to 1155/-. It was contended that the Administrative Officers of M.G.M. College, Jamshedpur also drew their salary at Rs. 510/- to 1155/-. This situation has been well explained by the Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital in his affidavit filed on 21.3.2005. It has been demonstrated that though the prescribed pay-scale of Administrative Officer (Non-Medical) in government hospital was Rs. 455- to 840/-. Subsequently, as per the 4th Pay Revision Committee the scale of Administrative Officer (Non-Medical) in Nalanda Medical College & Hospital was approved at Rs. 880/- to 1510/- with effect from 1.4.1981 and with the enforcement of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, it was fixed at Rs. 1640-2900. It is stated that in terms of the Fitment Committee report, the Finance Department in its resolution no. 660 dated 8.2.1999, has approved the scale of Rs. 5500/- to 9000/- in relation to the Administrative Officer (Non-Medical) with effect from 1.1.1996. With reference to Annexure-11 it is stated that the pay-scale of Administrative Officer as regards the Medical and Non-Medical category, is different in Medical College and Hospital. It is thus stated that in the light of the direction issued in - 6 - the letter no. 549(1) dated 6.11.2004 (Annexure-C) the fixation of the salary of the petitioner was correctly done in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500/- to 9000/-. Learned counsel for the State and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General jointly submit that the petitioner in fact does not stand to any loss in so far as fixation of pension is concerned for the reason that after adding on the stagnation increment the pension has been fixed on the basis of the salary drawn of Rs. 10,500/- as is evident from the pay-slip as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the Accountant General, hence there is no loss being suffered by the petitioner. In response to the averment of recovery, it is contended that it is not a case recovery rather because the pay fixation had earlier been done at an incorrect pay-scale of Rs. 6500/- to 10500/- , the same was corrected to Rs. 5500/- to 9000/- in the light of direction contained in Annexure-C and the difference of the salary was adjusted against the salary which was admissible to him during the period January, 2000 to March, 2001. It is stated that neither the petitioner objected to the stoppage of salary effected from January, 2000 to March, 2001 nor objected to the re- fixation of his pay-scale on 28.3.2001 or to the adjustment rather has allowed the same to become final. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of respective parties and considered the materials available on the record of the proceedings. A bare perusal of the pay-scales - 7 - prescribed by the Government of Bihar placed at Annexure-11 itself shows that a different pay-scale was prescribed by the Finance Department in the Medical and Non-Medical category. In so far as the Administrative Officers working in different medical colleges were concerned, the matter went up to the Finance Department. The Fitment Committee and the Fitment Appellate Committee upon consideration of the entire matter, held that the post of Administrative Officer (Non Medical) would carry a pay-scale of Rs. 5500/- to 9000/- which was the replacement scale of the Administrative Officer functioning in Nalanda Medical College and Hospital. The petitioner having accepted this position until his retirement and having not objected at the relevant time and even after lowering of his pay-scale under the orders dated 28.3.2001 as contained in Annexure-5 has raised the issue after four years thereafter and in fact after his superannuation on 31.7.2004. Apart from the delay aspect, the claim is also not sustainable in view of the consideration and decision of the Appellate Fitment Committee as communicated vide letter dated 6.11.2004 (Annexure-C). I find no infirmity in the decision of the respondent authorities. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is misconceived. The writ petition having no merit is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)