IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.495 of 2011 Kailash Pandit son of late Jamuna Das R/o Naya Bazar, P.O. + P.S. Tatarpur District Bhagalpur. …. Appellant. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar. 3.Addl.Finance Commissioner (Exp.) Finance Department, Bihar. 4. The Secretary cum-Commissioner, Health Services, Bihar. 5. Director In-chief, Health Services, Bihar. 6.Addl. Director, Health Services,(Chishik),Bihar. 7.Principal, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College & Hospital, Bhagalpur. ……………. . Respondents. ----------- 4. 05.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The writ court by order under appeal dated 20th August 2010 has dismissed the writ petition because it found no illegality in the resolution of the Finance Department dated 7th March 2006 which was Annexure-10 to the writ petition. By that resolution the revised pay scale for Modellor was determined at Rs.3,050-4,590/- with effect from 1st January 1996. The discussion made by the writ court at page-3 of the order shows that the writ court was given the current figure relating to pay scale already given to the writ petitioner/appellant from 1971 till 1996. The last pay scale given to him which he availed till his superannuation in August 2004 was of Rs.3,300-4,900/-. However, the writ court before noticing those figures formed a mistaken opinion that the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition in 2006, quite belatedly and his claim was for higher revision of his pay scale with effect from 1st April 1981. In fact, the grievance of the writ petitioner from the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant was only against implementation of Annexure-10 issued on 7th March 2006 in case of 2 the writ petitioner with effect from 1st January 1996 which would clearly have adverse affect upon the pay which he had already received from 1st January 1996 till his superannuation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would be satisfied if the salary which he has already received till his superannuation and his pension etc. fixed on that basis are not altered to his disadvantage on account of Annexure-10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the revised scale was not fixed earlier and, therefore, the Finance Department had to fix the same with effect from 1st January 1996 and, hence, the order has to be implemented to all persons holding the post of Modeller on 1st January 1996 and no grievance can be raised that such executive order cannot be retrospective. The stand of the State suffers from an error. The revision of pay scale from earlier date is permitted and accepted generally in all cases because it grants a benefit to the concerned employee by revising their lower pay scale into higher pay scale. The Executive can grant benefit with retrospective effect, but it cannot adversely affect the interest of the employees by issuing executive orders having retrospective effect. In the present case, the writ petitioner/appellant had already superannuated in 2004 in higher pay scale and, therefore, his grievance that he is adversely affected by retrospective obligation and revised pay scale fixed by Annexure-10 in 2006 appears to be correct and justified. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal by holding that Annexure-10 by which pay scale of the post of Modeller 3 has been revised with effect from 1st January 1996 shall not be implemented in the case of writ-petitioner/appellant, if it has the effect of revising his pay scale which was granted to him with effect from 1st January 1996 till his superannuation. The pension and other retrial benefits of the writ-petitioner/appellant shall also be protected similarly. The order under appeal shall stand modified to that extent. The appeal is allowed only to the aforesaid extent. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)