CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.11501 OF 2004 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ********* LAKSHMI DEVI wife of Shri Vishwanath Chaubey, resident of Village Khanethi Gurudas, Police Station Sonhan, District Kaimur …. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna -800015 2. The Director, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna -800015 3. The Assistant Director, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat 4. The DSE, Kaimur Bhabhua 5. The Accountant general, Bihar, Birchand Patel Marg, `R’ Block, Patna …. …… Respondents ******** For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent- State of Bihar : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma Assistant Counsel to Govt. Advocate no.V ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR S K Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.3.2004 (Annexure 5), passed by the respondent authorities, whereby grant of the Matric- trained scale to the petitioner with effect from 20.4.1971, has been recalled, and has instead been granted with effect from 12.6.1976. It is further directed against the consequential order dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure 6), passed by the Accountant General, whereby the money benefits admissible to the petitioner consequent upon the grant of the Matric-trained scale with effect from 12.6.76, has been stream- lined, the excess payment paid from 20.4.71 to 12.6.76, has been directed to be refunded, and the post-retirement benefits has been calculated accordingly. It is also directed against the consequential pension payment order (Annexure 3) in favour of the petitioner, has been issued by the Accountant General, a sum of Rs.1,38,000/- as alleged excess payment has been realized from the petitioner, and the post- retirement benefits have been calculated accordingly. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was appointed as middle-trained Assistant Teacher in a primary school on 26.3.62. She passed Prathma examination conducted by the Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Prayag, on 20.4.71, which, according to the petitioner, is 2 equivalent to the Matriculation of the Bihar School Examination Board. She also passed the Matriculation examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board on 12.6.76. The State Government issued order dated 15.10.92 (Annexure 1), whereby her Prathma examination was recognized to be equivalent to the Matriculation examination, and she was given the Matric-trained scale with effect from 20.4.71. She superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 28.2.2001, on completion of 58 years of age. 2.1 The Accountant General addressed his communication dt. 21.11.2002 (Annexure 2), to respondent no.2, questioning the grant of Matric trained scale with effect from 20.4.71. The communication further stated that the pension papers of the petitioner were being released from his office as an interim measure taking into account 12.6.76 to be the date of her entitlement. This led to issuance of the pension payment order (Annexure 3). Consequently, as an interim measure, the petitioner’s post-retirement benefits were fixed taking into account her entitlement as a Matric trained with effect from 12.6.76, and a sum of Rs.1,38,000/- was deducted from her post-retirement benefits, being the excess payment from 20.4.71 to 12.6.76. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the Govt. order dated 21.7.1975 (Annexure 9), issued by the Department of Personnel, that qualification of Prathma from Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Allahabad, is equivalent to Matriculation, subject to the conditions mentioned in column no.5 of the same. On the own showing of the petitioner, she acquired the qualification of Prathma from Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. We are, therefore, not sure whether or not the petitioner’s qualification was equivalent to Matriculation. However, it immediately attracts our attention that the State Government had taken nearly two decades to decide the question of equivalence and had decided in favour of the petitioner by order dated 15.10.92 (Annexure 1). She superannuated from service with effect from 28.2.2001 and the matter of equivalence is sought to be reopened thereafter in a situation where no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or the like is attributable to the petitioner. We feel unhappy at this kind of approach which is quite harassing to a person who has already entered the evening of her life. Furthermore, she has indeed acquired 3 the qualification of Prathma from Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. Furthermore, she acquired the qualification of the Matriculation on 12.6.76. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the State Government did not adopt the right approach in a situation, as stated hereinabove, no fraud, misrepresentation, or the like was attributable to her. The fact that the State Government had taken twenty years to issue the order dated 15.10.92, which by necessary implication would mean that the State Government had conducted a thorough enquiry, and reached the conclusion that the qualification of Prathma from Hindi Vishwvidyalaya, Prayag, is equivalent to Matriculation. 4. In the result, we set aside the provisional pension payment order (Annexure 3), the order dated 12.3.2004 (Annexure 5), as well as the order dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure 6). The State Government and the Accountant General are hereby directed to issue revised pension papers to the petitioner on the footing that she validly acquired the qualification of Prathma with effect from 20.4.71, and is entitled to the Matric-trained scale with effect from that date. The sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- shall also be refunded to her promptly. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is concluded within a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of six percent on the amounts she has so far been deprived of from the date(s) the same became due till the date of payment. ( S K Katriar ) Patna High Court, Patna The 3rd of March 2010 NAFR/mrl