IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2471 of 2006 SOMNATH RAJHANSH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 26-02-2010 Heard Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Government Advocate No. 2 for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The petitioner was appointed as a Seasonal Moharrir on 22.12.1968 and after being appointed as a temporary clerk on 7.11.1979, he was appointed as a regular clerk on 25.3.1980. The petitioner after obtaining time bound promotions superannuated on 31.7.2004. On non-payment of part of the pensionary benefits, the writ petition came to be filed for a direction to the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioner as Seasonal Moharrir and for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- attached to the post of a clerk. A further prayer was made for payment of the G.P.F. amount, leave salary etc. and the payment of arrears of salary in the light of the salary bill no. 138/04-05 which according to the petitioner although has been issued but the payment was not made. Learned counsel further submits that he is also entitled for differential salary consequent upon the pay-revision which took place with effect from 1.1.1996 with actual benefits payable from 1.4.1997. A prayer for benefits arising from the A.C.P. Scheme was also sought for. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for counting his post services is concerned, an order was passed during the pendency of the - 2 - proceedings contained in letter no. 1345 dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure- 9) under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tarapur. Under the said order the services rendered by the petitioner as Seasonal Moharrir has been counted for the purpose of his qualifying service. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to a letter of the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Tarapur dated 10.11.2004 placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition submits that the respondents themselves accepted the period rendered by him, although in terms of the said document the period served as a Seasonal Moharrir has been calculated as eight years, nine months and nine days but in the order dated 28.01.2010 it has been treated only eight years, five months and eight days and period of four months have been left out in the calculation of the qualifying service. Learned counsel with reference to the order contained in letter no. 1662 dated 22.01.2007 placed at Annexure-10 of the rejoinder submits that although pay of the petitioner has been revised and fixed in the scale of Rs. 4,000/- 6,000/- but the differential salary arising there from has not been paid to him. Learned counsel submits that the revision under the Fifth Pay Revision has been extended to the petitioner, hence he would also be entitled for benefits under the A.C.P. Scheme and which has not been granted to him. It is further submitted that the salary bill no. 138/04-05 though having been passed, the payments have not yet been made and the respondents in paragraph-8 of their counter affidavit has admitted that the payment of the bill would be made after allotment. He submits - 3 - that a period of more than five years have been passed and payments have not yet been made. According to the petitioner, the respondents are under an obligation to count and re-calculate the period served as Seasonal Muharrir in terms of Annexure-1. They are required to make payment on arrears of salary in pursuance of Annexure-10 and make payment of arrears of salary pursuant to the salary bill no. 138/04-05 which admittedly has not yet been paid, together with other dues which are admissible to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the grievance of the petitioner has been admitted by the respondents and who also have acted thereon and issued orders for counting his past services, the revision of his pay-scale etc., no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending and the same is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his pending grievance(s) before the respondent no. 9 the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tarapur, Munger together with supportive details and who shall consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation and in case any of the claim set out by the petitioner, is found admissible and has not been paid, the same should also be made over to him. Needless to add that any claim found inadmissible, should be rejected by a speaking order. The writ petition stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)