IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.738 of 2008 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS. Versus 1. BEYAS SHARMA SON OF LATE HARI NANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SADHNAPURI, HOUSE NO.- E/1, ROAD NO. -6D, GARDANIBAGH, POLICE STATION- GARDANIBAGH, DIST. PATNA- RESPONDENT- IST. SET- .........................PETITIONER. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTOR (P.W.), KARMIK PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND MINISTRY OF PENJSION, IIIRD. FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI...... PROFORMA RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS SECOND SET. ----------------- ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 :- 1. MR. ANIL KUMAR SINGH & 2. MR. SURINDER KUMAR ----------------- ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE ;- MR. LAL BABU SINGH, ASST. COUNSEL TO AAG-2. -------------- 5 9-10-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. In view of discussions made in paragraph 3 of the order under appeal it is clear that the writ court found the reason as to why the employees who superannuated on or before 31-12-1985 became entitled for higher pension, to be the fact that they were allowed average of ten months notional pay and emolument in the revised scale but this was not allowed to employees like the petitioner who - 2 - retired on or after 1-1-1986. From the averments made in the memorandum of appeal it is clear that the authorities are aware of such anomaly but they decided not to remove the anomaly on account of financial consideration. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us to the averments made in memorandum of appeal as well as annexure-1 to the memorandum of appeal but could not satisfy us as to why such favourable treatment given to those employees retiring by 31-12-1985 by allowing notional pay in the revised scale, was denied to those who retired on or after 1.1.1986 but without completing ten months service in the revised pay-scale. In such a situation we find ourselves unable to interfere with the relief granted to the petitioner by the writ court. However, we find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the direction made by the writ court in paragraph-6 should have been for revising the pension of the petitioner after taking into account the notional pay in the revised scale as per benefit given to those who retired on or before 31-12-1985 and not - 3 - by taking into account the actual emolument up to January 1986 and notional emolument for the period February to October, 1986 which in the case of the petitioner will be after his actual retirement. To that extent the order under appeal stands modified but that shall not affect the actual relief which the petitioner has been granted by the writ court by way of direction to revise his pension so that his pension amount may not be less than pension to those who were similarly placed but superannuated prior to 31-12-1985. With the aforesaid clarification and modification the order under appeal is disposed of. If the benefit granted by the writ court has not been actually extended to the writ petitioner as yet, the same should be made available to him within a period of three months. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma,J) naresh