IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3227 of 2005 HUSAINI RAVIDAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the Corporation : Mr. Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi, Adv. ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 8th July, 2008. In response to this M.J.C., on behalf of the Opposite parties, show cause has been shown. The explanation in the show cause is thus: - “6. That it is further submitted that as per the direction of the State Government the Board of the Corporation in its meeting dated 25.2.2006 has adopted the same on the condition that since the financial condition of the corporation is depreciable and hence it will be paid after receipt of 30% grant and 40% Loan from the state government, as assured by them. The Board has also decided that grant from the State should be continued till the Stable Financial Position of the corporation. It is further decided that after receiving of the grant and loan from the State Government the difference of salary/pension on account of pay revision will be made to its employee. It is further decided that since all the powers with regard to 74th Amendment has not been handed over to the Corporation hence the payment of grant and loan be continued from the State Government. 7. That the aforesaid resolution of the Board which has been taken in the light of the direction of the State Government has been also communicated to the Secretary, Urban Development Department vide Memo - 2 - no.209 dated 28.2.2006. True copy of memo no.209 dated 28.2.2006 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure:A to this show cause. 8. That further it is submitted here that in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Board now the employee of the Corporation are entitled for the revised pay scale and they will be paid after release of the Fund from the State Government. 9. That further it is submitted here that in previous also as per the direction of the State Government pay/pension has been revised and for assured portion of the fund the State Government on several occasion has been requested by the corporation but the same is not being paid which is evident from one of the order dated 640 dated 19.10.2004. Photo copy of letter no.640 dated 19.10.2004 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure:B to this show cause. 10. That similar request has also been made by the Corporation vide memo no.36 dated 30.12.2006 and memo no.88 dated 29.1.2007 and that is why in a similar case i.e. M.J.C No.1670 of 2004, Devendra Prasad-vs-State of Bihar & others, when the Hon’ble Court has expressed displeasure the State Government has accepted and made payment as far as the aforesaid petitioner was concerned. Similar situation has also arised in MJC No2792 of 2006, Jabvn-vs- State of Bihar & others, in that case also the payment of differential amount has been paid only after assurance of the State Government. Photo copy of memo no.36 dated 30.12.06, 88 dt. 29.1.07 and letter in connection with MJC No.1670/04 and 2792/06 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure:C (Series) to this show cause. 11. That it is further submitted here that due to financial crunch the regular employee of the corporation is not getting their salary for 32 months and as far as the retired employee is concerned their pension is also dues - 3 - from August 2005 and both the categories of employees will be paid as per the availability of fund. 12. That it is further stated that the Corporation has been enacted under Article 243 of the Constitution of India and doing the duty of the State but the State Government is not supporting the Corporation as grant in aid as per statutory provisions in article 243 of the Constitution of India and thus the Corporation is running with financial crunch. 13. That it is further submitted that the Corporation is doing job of the State, giving the facilities of sanitation and other civic immunities but the State is not providing grant in aid. While dealing the matter a bench of this Hon’ble Court in a case of Bageshwari Kuar-vs- C.E.O. Municipal Corporation, Gaya and others vide CWJC No.91 of 2003 along with analogous cases vide order dated 30.5.07 has directed the State Government to take proper steps so as to ensure the payment of retiral dues/salary of the employee of the Corporation. The Hon’ble Court has further deal with the article 243 of the Constitution of India under which the Corporation/local bodies has been enacted. The answering opposite party craves leave of the Hon’ble Court to produce the copy of the aforesaid judgment. 14. That further it is submitted that no employee of the corporation has been given the benefit difference of salary/pension on account of pay revision save and except a few as aforesaid after release of the fund from the State Government.” 2. It is not in dispute that retirement benefits have been given to the petitioner on old pay-scale. The grievance of the petitioner is that the retiral benefits ought to have been calculated on the basis of new pay-scale. 3. The counsel for the Gaya Municipal Corporation submits that the State Government has not released the fund on account of pay revision and, therefore, the retirement benefits could - 4 - not have been given on the basis of new pay-scale. He submits that as and when the amount is received from the State, the same would be paid. 4. With what has been stated in the show-cause, we are satisfied that there has been no deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 19.3.2004. 5. We record and accept the statement of the counsel for the Corporation that as and when the amount is received by the Corporation from the State Government on account of pay-revision, the retiral benefits to the petitioner shall be recalculated in the light of the new pay-scale and the differential shall be paid immediately thereafter. 6. M.J.C. stands disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-