IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1318 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5456 of 2003 With Interlocutory Application No. 6471 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1318 of 2011 ====================================================== Gopal Jee, S/o Late Dinanath Ji, the then Senior Clerk A.N.M. School, Ara, Resident of Mohalla-Shivganj, Ward No. 18, P.S. Ara Town, P.O. Shivganj, District-Bhojpur (Ara). .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through its Secretary cum Commissioner, Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi. 2. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director in Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medicial Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ishwari Singh, Advocate with Mr. Ram Krishna Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A.-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1318 of 2011 (4) dt.29-11-2011 2 / 4 2 4. 29-11-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 6471 of 2011: The delay of 343 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.1318 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 6th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 5456 of 2003. The Appellant, a retired Upper Division Clerk in the State of Bihar, filed C.W.J.C. No. 5456 of 2003 to claim the upward revision of pay in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1st January 1996. According to the appellant, prior to 1st January 1996 he was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400- 2600. After revision of pay the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.1400- 2600 was revised to Rs.5000-8000. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to the corresponding pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. However, in utter disregard of the Government resolution the appellant was placed in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. The Appellant also claimed that he be treated as employee of the Central Government and that he may be continued in service till he reached the age of 60 years. At the time of hearing the appellant did not press any other relief; the only relief he claimed was upward revision of pay- scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1st January 1996. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. According to the appellant, the appellant was appointed in 1965 as Lower Division Clerk. In 1981, although he was due for promotion, he was denied the promotion. Prior to 1st Patna High Court LPA No.1318 of 2011 (4) dt.29-11-2011 3 / 4 3 January 1996, he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600; on revision of pay from 1st January 1996, he was entitled to the corresponding revised pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000. Nevertheless, the appellant was denied the said pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000; instead he had been placed in the lower pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000. The claim was contested by the State Government. The State Government denied that the appellant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk as alleged. According to the State Government, the appellant was appointed in 1965 as a Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.105-155. In 1981 the cadre of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk were unified in one common cadre of Upper Division Clerk. Accordingly, the appellant was upgraded as Upper Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.284-372. The question of promotion as Upper Division Clerk, therefore, did not arise. The State Government has denied that on revision of pay from 1st January 1996, the appellant was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. According to the State Government, the existing pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 was revised to Rs.4000-6000 i.e. the pay scale to which the appellant was entitled to. Accordingly, his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. In support of this submission the State Government has produced the Government Resolution dated 8th June 1999. Under the said Resolution, the State Government revised the existing pay scales of the Government employees with effect from 1st January 1996. Item No.54 in the appendix to the said Resolution refers to the Accountants. The existing pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 of the Accountant had been revised to Rs.4000- 6000. Indeed, in respect of the Accountants possessing the qualification of Senior Auditor, the existing pay scale of Rs.1400- Patna High Court LPA No.1318 of 2011 (4) dt.29-11-2011 4 / 4 4 2600 was revised to Rs.5000-8000. Learned advocate Mr. Ishwari Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that the appellant was wrongly denied promotion due in 1981 and has wrongly been denied the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1st January 1996. In support of his submission Mr. Singh has relied upon the chart Annexure-9 to the writ petition. We have perused the chart relied upon by Mr. Singh. In our opinion, the said chart is of no consequence. The said chart does not indicate the nature of the document or whether it is an authentic document issued by the State Government. In our opinion, the said chart does not support the claim of the appellant. As recorded herein above, the appellant had been given the benefit of the revised pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000, corresponding the existing pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. It is not the case of the appellant that he possessed the qualification of a Senior Auditor. In absence of such assertion the claim for the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 is untenable. In our opinion, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence also. The appellant having availed of the benefit of pay revision as early as in 1999, the claim made in 2003 after his retirement was clearly an afterthought. The claim is devoid of any merit. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)