IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7610 of 2009 Rajbalam Ram, s/o late Banarsi Ram, resident of Mohalla – Bhikhachak, P O – Anisabad, P S – Gardani Bagh, Dist – Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Bihar at Patna 2 The Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna 3 The Executive Officer, Patna Water Board, Patna under Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna 4 The Chief Engineer, Patna Water Board, Patna under Patna Municipal Corporation - Respondents W I T H CWJC No 7557 of 2009 Kailash Sao, s/o late Rajai Sao, resident of Village – Bishunpura Bariya Pati Tola Risal Pati, P O – Bishunpur, P S – Bishunpur, Dist – Kusinagar, State – Uttar Pradesh - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through its Secretary – cum- Commissioner, Department of Urban Development, Bihar at Patna 2 The Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna 3 The Executive Officer, Patna Water Board under Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna 4 The Chief Engineer, Patna Water Board under Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna - Respondents ----------- 3 05.08.2009 The petitioners, in both the cases, were permanent employees of Patna Water Board under the Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. They superannuated from service on 31.12.2002 and 31.07.2004 respectively. They have come to this Court with 2 specific grievances, firstly that under the policy of the Government, as adopted and accepted by the Patna Municipal Corporation, petitioners were entitled to Assured Career Progression (ACP) but even though entitlement is not in dispute, its benefits have not been given to the petitioners. Their second and more important grievance is that as a 2 consequence of 06th Pay Revision which has been made applicable to the Corporation as well with effect from 01.01.1996, petitioners were entitled to revised pay scale. During their service tenure, they were not given the same as that had yet to be calculated, the result being that even their retiral dues were calculated on unrevised pay scale. Their prayer is for an appropriate direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay the same in entire. These matters were earlier taken up and adjourned for the Corporation to file a comprehensive counter affidavit so that the matter may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Learned counsel for the Corporation today states that he has got written instructions from the Executive Officer, Water Board, Patna Municipal Corporation dated 04.08.2009 in the first case which he has very fairly shared with the Court. The written instructions are categorical. It accepts the liability to revise the pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996. It is said that the pay and emoluments on revised basis is being worked out. One significant statement therein is that no one in the Corporation has been paid the revised pay scale which was effective from 01.01.1996 till today. The liability to pay, thus, stands admitted but awaits quantification and availability of funds. So far as ACP is concerned, petitioners’ right to get ACP is not disputed. Here again, it is said that the same is being finalised and calculations being made. Payments would be made no sooner funds are available. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, with their consent, the writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage itself 3 especially in view of the instructions, as received above in the first case. From the fair stand taken by the Corporation, it is clear that petitioners’ entitlement to revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 and ACP is not in dispute. Payment of both is dependent on calculation being made and funds being available. In my view, both these contingencies are not the problem of the petitioners. They are the obligation and duty of the respondents. The respondents are under obligation to pay the amount. An amount, which was due from and with effect from 01.01.1996 is yet to be computed after 13 years, is a matter of concern. What is of greater concern is when would payment ultimately be received. Would it be within the lifetime of the petitioners who have spent their whole life serving the Corporation, one wonders? So far as this Court is concerned, all it can say is had the respondents been private entrepreneurs then they would have been bound foot and mouth by the provisions of payment of Wages Act etc and by now would have been prosecuted and faced with several certificate proceedings and coercive steps therein but taking advantage of exemption in favour of the Corporation from rigors of those laws, such an action cannot be countenanced. The exemption was granted on the fundamental basis that governmental or State action would not be arbitrary and did not require strict regulation. This fundamental basis has been rendered unrealistic and wrong. Here, there is absolutely no excuse for not calculating the dues, no sooner the pay revision committee’s report was accepted. What is taking the Corporation decades to calculate liability is also not understood. The only reason is 4 that there is no answerability for these non-actions. ACP is a sort of incentive granted to employees. It is to come at the right time but petitioners having superannuated are still to enjoy its benefits. Again, there is no fault of the petitioners. In such a situation, I am left with no option but to direct the respondent-Corporation and its officials to ensure that so far as petitioners are concerned, the calculations, both with regard to arrears of revised pay/pension and arrears on account of grant of ACP, be finalised within 1 month from today and communicated to the petitioner in writing giving details of calculations. Payment of amounts due thereunder must be made within 1 month thereafter. In case the same is not made within 1 month thereafter, as pointed out above, the same would be liable to be paid to the petitioners at the simple interest rate of 12% per year from the time it was due till the time it is paid and till the same is not paid in full, the Executive Officer of the Water Board, Patna Municipal Corporation would not draw any remuneration whatsoever nor would any such remuneration be drawn by any Municipal Commissioner. With these observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)