IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6907 of 2007 JAYANT KUMAR LAHIRI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 02. 12.09.2008 Petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation. Somewhere down the line his services were placed on deputation on 9.4.2001 under the Directorate of Census Operations, Government of India at the local office. He continued on the post as a deputationist till 31.10.2004 and soon thereafter in December, 2004 superannuated from the parent department. He had earlier moved this Court for a direction upon the respondents for granting him a corresponding pay-scale. That matter was disposed of on 5.4.2005 with direction upon the respondents to take a decision in this regard. Based on the representation made by the petitioner the then Managing Director of Bihar State Sugar Corporation vide letter No.345 dated 12.9.2005 communicated the status of the pay-scale and other emoluments to which the petitioner was entitled to, as would be evident from the communication which has been brought on record as annexure-4 by the petitioner and is corroborated by the respondent Census Department in their supplementary counter affidavit filed in this regard. But despite this communication made in the year 2005 the respondents have sat over the matter and not worked out of the difference of salary to be paid to the petitioner from the period 9.4.2001 to 31.10.2004 . It is in this background that the present writ application has come to be filed. In the two counter affidavits which have been filed on - 2 - behalf of the respondents they are not disputing the claim of the petitioner but they just want to be cautious over the issue that payment to the petitioner would be made on the correct pay scale and entitlement. It is in this background that they had written letter dated 7.3.2007 addressed to the Managing Director of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation which has not been responded. That is the reason why the payment has not been made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that letter dated 7.3.2007 is only a ploy to cover up their inaction. They intentionally ignored the earlier communication made by the Managing Director and only when they new that matter is going to travel to the court that they had created a letter to cover up and fill the time gap and inaction. The Court does not want to get bogged down with the dispute of the kind. The question is once the Managing Director had certified way back in the year 2005 and if the respondents concerned had any doubt, they should have taken steps immediately thereafter. If nothing has been done in all these years, then the Court has difficulty in allowing the respondents to prolong the litigation and the matter indefinitely. Direction is therefore issued upon the respondent no.2, the Joint Director, Directorate of Census Operations and respondent No.4 that they shall ensure the calculation of the difference of salary, take steps for payment of the same and if necessary, will also seek a declaration of indemnity from the petitioner that if at any point of time any discrepancy in the pay and emoluments is found, - 3 - the petitioner shall be bound to refund the same, if necessity for the same arises without any legal action or technicality in this regard. It is hoped and expected that the above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed with the above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)