IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8485 of 2005 RAM SINGH, son of late Brij Nandan Singh, resident of Navin Nagar, P.S. Nawadah Sadar, district - Nawada ------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum - Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,Patna. 2. Agriculture Production Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Agriculture Officer, Nawadah. 4. Additional Secretary, Personal Claim Department, Department of Finance, Bishwasaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 5. Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. -------------------------------- Respondents For the petitioner: M/S. Banwari Sharma, Shiv Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. For the State : M/S. Kumar Alok, SC 19 and S Prasad, JC to SC 19 For the Accountant General : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar. ***** 04. 19.01.2009 Petitioner retired from service of the Agriculture Department some time in the year 1991 and this is his third visit to the High Court. In the present writ application he has raised a grievance against the speaking order dated 7.1.2002 contained in Annexure-8 which has been passed by the Finance Commissioner on the directions of the High Court, which was issued on 30.6.1997 in the earlier writ application of the petitioner. One of the issues which the Finance Commissioner has to address was as to what would be the date of superannuation of the petitioner. Based on his date of birth the difference is not too far. According to the Commissioner the date of superannuation of the petitioner would be 30.6.1991 but, according to the petitioner, it should be 30.11.1991. The dispute is of about five months. Speaking order categorically records that in the GPF application filed by the petitioner in his own pen he had declared his date of birth as 1.7.1933 - 2 - and that is the only evidence available because the original service book of the petitioner has gone missing. The Finance Commissioner has considered this evidence to be vital in deciding the date of superannuation of the petitioner. The second grievance raised by the petitioner before the Finance Commissioner was that he had not been given benefit of higher pay scale from 12.11.1987 despite earning promotion on the higher scale which is not disputed. The third grievance was with regard to the earned leave which the petitioner would be entitled. Reverting to the first issue in the given facts and circumstances that the petitioner too has failed to bring any additional material in support of his claim that his date of birth is actually 1.7.1933, the reasoning given by the Finance Commissioner that the declaration of the petitioner in his GPF application in his own pen cannot be ignored or brushed aside. Therefore, for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and other retiral dues 30.6.1991 will be treated as the date in this regard. So far as the issue of resolution of five months is concerned the Court can only observe that if the petitioner has worked on the post till 30.11.1991 then the respondent authorities will not make any demand in terms of recovery or refund by way of salary if it stands paid to him. The Finance Commissioner has categorically recorded that on verification of records it has been seen that petitioner has been given revised pay scale from 12.11.1987 which is Rs.2200-4000. The - 3 - actual salary having been fixed at Rs.3350/- and last at Rs.3400/-. The petitioner submits that since the order dated 7.1.2002 contained in annelxure-8 has not been communicated to the Accountant General there is no reflection of the revised salary in the fixation of pension of the petitioner. The Court records that the order of the Finance Commissioner contained in annexure-8 in this regard would be examined by the Accountant General and the pension papers of the petitioner would be verified to see that it is in conformity with the revised pay which the petitioner has been given from 12.11.1987. If the Accountant General has taken this aspect while fixing the pension, no further exercise would be required but if there is any variance the Accountant General would resolve the matter within a period of three months from the date of communication/receipt of a copy of this order. The Court does not think necessary to record anything with regard to entitlement of the petitioner under the head of earned leave. The order of Finance Commissioner in this regard will cover the issue. Since the petitioner is a retiree of the year 1991 let all issues be brought to rest and resolved by making appropriate payment to the petitioner within the time-frame i.e. three months by all the respective authorities. The writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)