CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8002 OF 2002 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. ---------- SHREE NANDAN PRASAD S/O LATE SITA RAM PRASAD R/O SADIPUR, PO- PONDIL PS.- KARPI DISTT- JEHANABAD AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MALAKAR STORE LANE (OLD G.T. ROAD, AURANGABAD) PO-+ PS.+ DISTT-AURANGBAD0-- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD 4. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFRICER, AURANGABAD 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR-----(Respondents) --------- For The Petitioner :MR. UMESH PATHAK,ADVOCATE For The Respondent : MR. RAJGERHAR, JC TO J.P.KARN,ADVOCATE --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J. By virtue of the order dated 26.11.2001 contained in annexure-1 issued by the Accountant General, the salary of the petitioner is sought to be refixed and subsequently based on the decision contained in annexure-10 dated 23.8.2003 certain recovery from salary is sought to be made from the petitioner. Petitioner superannuated from the post of Head Assistant on 31.8.1999 from the district of Aurangabad. Prior to his superannuation the petitioner had been given benefit of promotion on the senior selection grade with effect from 1.2.1994 as would be evident from annexure-2 and in terms of the revised pay scale which came into effect from 1996 he was entitled to draw Rs. 5000-8000/-. All had been well till his service record was forwarded to the Accountant General for settlement of his retiral - 2 - dues and pension. The office of the Accountant General raised an objection in terms of annexure-1 dated 26.11.2001. The objection was that the district authority, no doubt, had been given power to identify and create need based posts but the same could not be more than 27 in number. Since the petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 32, in the opinion of the Accountant General he could not have been given benefit of promotion on senior selection grade. On the face of it the objection raised by the Accountant General does not seem to be misplaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake or mischief has been played at the local level. Vide notification dated 23.8.2008 contained in annexure-6 petitioner was shown to be at serial no. 32 whereas by virtue of entry into service on 22.4.1958 the petitioner ought to have ranked much higher. Many juniors who have been shown senior to him in the said notification. When the matter came to the knowledge of the petitioner he filed representation vide annexure-7pointing out the infirmity but it seems that the respondent district authority did not want to unsettle the settled situation and rejected the claim of the petitioner for appropriate rectification on the ground that it is belated claim. Annexure-6, no doubt, has come into existence when the petitioner had superannuated. There is nothing to show on behalf of the State that the petitioner had been duly informed of - 3 - the said decision or he was given an opportunity before annexure- 6 come into existence. Since the petitioner had already superannuated therefore it is quite possible and likely that he came to learn about the communication contained in annexure-6 on a subsequent stage and therefore he approached the authority on 18.9.2001 which is not too far away from the dated of the notification issued under annexure-6. The Court is of the opinion that the district authority tried to brush aside the issue instead of dealing with the grievance of the petitioner head on. If the objection of the Accountant General was not raised all would have been well and the petitioner would have been a happy person leading a retired life. But since the objection contained in annexure-1 and the consequential order affecting the right of the petitioner has come to be passed the grievance has been raised in the present writ application. After having perused the record and after having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court comes to a considered opinion that on the face of the record the petitioner has been shown to be junior to many others juniors which is emerging from perusal of annexure-6 read with annexure-7. This is a matter which has to be resolved at the local level by the District Magistrate of Aurangabad. No senior can be shown to junior in rank and that too without any cogent reason being available on record for relegating him to a position to which he was otherwise not entitled to. - 4 - This writ application is disposed of with the direction upon the District Magistrate that he shall examine the claim of the petitioner afresh in terms of annexure-7, the representation, and decide the issue of his seniority preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. The decision of the District Magistrate shall govern the issue with regard to grievance of the petitioner and his retiral dues thereafter. Service Book in original is being returned to learned counsel for the State, namely, J.C, to S.C.-5 today in Court for being transmitted back to the District Authority, Aurangabad. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 16th January, 2009 NAFR ( RPS)