IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18356 of 2010 1. Amod Kumar S/O Late Ram Govind Ram R/O Mohalla- Dasratha, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Distt.- Patna, Presently Posted As Clerk In The Office Of Insprectress Of Schools-Cum-Deputy Directress, Bihar, Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Education Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Inspectress Of Schools-Cum-Deputy Director Education, Bihar, Patna 5. Smt. Prabhawati Kumari Inspectress Of Schools-Cum- Deputy Director Education, Bihar, Patna 3/ 02/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the withholding of his salary from April, 2010 on the ground that he was amenable to the new Contributory Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.F.) and was required to fill in his application accordingly. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to the benefit of the old pension scheme by G.P.F. deductions from his salary. The petitioner is stated to have been recommended for appointment on 2.8.2005 along with certain others. The appointment was actually made after 1.9.2005 when the C.P.F. scheme came into 2 operation. His grievance as pleaded at paragraph-14 is of discrimination. It is submitted that the respondents had originally rightly assigned him under the old pension scheme and made deductions from his salary and depositing it in his G.P.F. account. It was wrongly stopped subsequently on the former ground. The respondents in their counter affidavit have taken the stand that since he was appointed after 1.9.2005 he was rightly amenable to the new C.P.F. scheme and the error when detected has only been rectified. A mere recommendation on 2.8.2005 shall not tantamount to appointment. If appointment has actually been made after 1.9.2005 the respondents may have a justification. But, if others from the same recommendation, in which the petitioner’s name was also forwarded have been appointed days prior to 1.9.2005 have been assigned and treated as under the old pension scheme, the petitioner has a case on grounds of hostile discrimination. The mere fortuitous date of the appointment letter cannot be sufficient justification for such discrimination. But when allegations of hostile discrimination are made, the pleadings have to be specific and detailed with names, dates and the manner 3 of discrimination. Paragraph-14 of the writ application is completely wanting in all these aspects. It is not possible for the Court to hold on the issue of discrimination. That such a vague allegation of discrimination has not been answered in the counter affidavit is of no avail to the petitioner. If so advised, the petitioner may represent before the authorities along with necessary details of names, facts and dates of persons recommended along with him and with regard to whom he alleges hostile discrimination on a mere fortuitous event of the date of the appointment letter. In that event the respondents are required to dispose off the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. It is expected that depending on the nature of such decision, if required, the respondents shall take such corrective action that may or may not be required shall be done simultaneously. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)