IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1964 of 2009 BINDA MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 10/2/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner has made prayer to the following effect:- (i) The revised pay scale (Central) be granted to the petitioner with due date when juniors have been granted and the difference of pay be calculated and be paid to the petitioner within the time fixed by this Hon’ble Court with 18% interest per annum thereon till the date of actual payment; (ii) The leave encashment amount be worked out on the basis of revised pay scale and the difference be paid to the petitioner with 18% interest per annum thereon till the date of actual payment; (iii) The gratuity amount be calculated as per the revised pay scale and the difference be paid to the petitioner with 18% interest per annum thereon; (iv) The pension of the petitioner be revised and calculated on proper pay scale of the petitioner and the difference be worked out and be paid to the petitioner with 18% 2 interest per annum thereon; (v) Any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner be found entitled to be granted to him. As with regard to the aforementioned relief all that has been noted is that the petitioner has retired on 30.6.1996, whereas, benefit of pay revision effected on 18.12.1999 with effect from 1.1.1996 by the State Government which had envisaged pay fixation with effect from 1.1.1996 and actual payment of cash benefit was with effect from 1.4.1997. This event of 13 years is now sought to be reopened by the petitioner by filing this writ application by making the aforementioned prayer which on the face of it is fit to be rejected on the ground of unexplained delay of 13 years. That apart, plea of the petitioner that some junior to him has been given such benefit, cannot be looked into because the petitioner has neither produced any document nor has given name of the similarly situated person who has given such benefit in terms of pay revision. 3 Obviously, all the relief as prayed in this writ application were wholly dependant on the basic issue as to whether petitioner was entitled for the benefit of central pay scale in its actual payment in cash with effect from 1.1.1996. As noted above, none of the employee of the Government of Bihar was given that benefit and therefore unless the State of Bihar will take such decision, the petitioner is not entitled for such benefit. There cannot be any exception in the case of the petitioner alone. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to certain statement in paragraph 12 of the writ application to show that after his retirement his pension was being paid at the rate of Rs.3186/- per month which was suddenly reduced in the year, 2008 to Rs.2976/- per month. Grievance of the petitioner is that such reduction was made without any information muchless notice and/or opportunity of show-cause. This Court would find it difficult to decide this question in this writ application because first of all as noted 4 above there is no prayer to that effect and secondly his representation of the year 2008 as contained in Annexures- 3, 3/1 and 3/II also did not disclose any grievance for such cause of action. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot give any direction to the authority to decide the matter relating to reduction of pension of the petitioner. It however goes without saying that if the petitioner has only his grievance confined to reduction of his pension as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ application, he is always at liberty to bring this fact in the notice of the competent authority who will be under obligation to look into such grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation along with copy of this order. This would dispose of this application. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar