IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7970 of 2004 MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE RAM RAJ SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARPURNAND, P.S. SONEPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, KOSHI ZONE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WESTERN KOSHI CANAL DIVISON, DARBHANGA. 6. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. APAR VITTYA AYUKTA (SANSADHAN), BIHAR, PATNA. 8. A.G. BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 4 02/08/2010 This is yet another of those classic cases where left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Benefit of pay scale of Rs.730-1080 with effect from 1.4.1981 then the subsequent revision from 1.1.1986 and yet another revision of 1.1.1996 is sought to be taken away from the petitioner by virtue of the order dated 17.10.2003 contained in annexure-4. The reason indicated in the said letter is that persons appointed on the post of Storekeeper after 1.4.1981 are not entitled to the benefit of the pay scale. What would be the pay scale available to such - 2 - persons became subject matter of dispute in atleast two cases which were C.W.J.C. No. 2947 of 1995 (Nakul Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Others) as well as C.W.J.C. No.618 of 1990 (Sushant Krishna Ghosh Mallick & others Vs. State of Bihar & Others). Both these decisions are Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application. The benefit of the decision was sought to be extended to all such similarly situated employees working in the Irrigation Department which would be evident from Annexure-3 to the writ application. One significant aspect of that notification is that such a benefit would not accrue to such persons who were appointed after 1.4.1981 as Storekeeper. Some facts are not disputed that the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Storekeeper by virtue of a decision taken by the Chief Engineer dated 16.06.1981. Petitioner has joined the post on 24.06.1981. Prima facie, therefore, the cut off date being 1.4.1981 the petitioner cannot demand parity or benefit of the circular contained in annexure-3 as is the stand of the respondents but there are two significant documents which have been brought on - 3 - record by the petitioner in his rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit. First document is dated 14.3.1985 contained in Annexure-5 which indicates that the benefit of appointment on the post of Storekeeper was sought to be pushed back to 1.3.1981. This letter has also been issued by the Chief Engineer and thereafter is the seniority list issued by the department contained in annexure-7. Petitioner’s name figures at serial no. 27 and his date of joining in the post of Storekeeper has been shown to be 1.3.1981. So far as Nakul Kumar Mishra is concerned, he figures at serial no. 48 and his date of joining is 29.06.1981. Obviously, the push back date of 1.3.1981 has been accepted to be the official date of joining of the petitioner, if not his appointment. It is evident from the official notification contained in annexure-7 that despite Nakul Kumar Mishra having been shown to have joined or appointed on 29.6.1981, he has walked away with all the benefits of pay scale by a judicial order contained in annexure-1. If one takes into consideration the case of the present petitioner, the official document show his date of appointment as 1.3.1981 i.e. prior to 1.4.1981 which is the cut - 4 - off date. If that is so, then obviously the respondents have not taken into consideration the factual position about the date of appointment of the petitioner. Annexure-4, in light of the above cannot be sustained. The same stands quashed and the writ application is allowed. By virtue of quashing of annexure-4 the benefit will accrue to the petitioner. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)