IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8058 of 2004 Narayan Chandra Roy, Son of Late Jogesh Chandra Roy, resident of Raj putana, Mohalla near Nutan Chetan School House of Sri Nageshwar Prasad Singh (Advocate) Rajputana, Mohalla-Yarpur, District-Patna. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Secretary Incharge of Pension Cell, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 5. Director Administration, Agriculture Department, Patna. 6. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s-Binita Singh & Sunil Kumar Kern, Advocates. For the Respondents :Mr. Syad Arsad Alam, SC-3. ------------- 04 07.01.2011 The pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. The petitioner was appointed as Typist on 29.07.1970 in the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The State Government subsequently decided to virtually disband the Corporation and absorb all the employees of the Corporation in different Departments of the Government. Accordingly, on 28.06.1984, petitioner was absorbed and appointed in the Department of Agriculture and, by orders of Director, Department of Agriculture, petitioner was given pay protection. In other words, petitioner was allowed to continue in the same pay scale which he was getting in the Corporation. The petitioner, accordingly, was receiving his remuneration and he superannuated on 31.01.2001. Upon superannuation, he was given only 90% of pension as provisional pension pending finalization. In 2002, he was given the first time bound promotion with effect from 01.09.1997 and further his pay scale was revised with effect from - 2 - 01.01.1996 upon the report of the Fitment Committee. When his retiral dues were not being accordingly finalized giving effect to these promotions, pay revision and clearance of the balance of the 90% pension, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No.1973 of 2003, which was disposed of on 18.04.2003, directing the petitioner to make representation before the Secretary, Incharge of Pension Cell. Petitioner made a representation claiming all the aforesaid balance amounts but as is usually done in Bihar, there was a parting kick that was given by the impugned orders, as contained in Anneuxre-5 series dated 28.02.2004, his basic salary right from the time of his absorption in the Agriculture Department was revised and reduced on the specious plea that the Finance Department did not concur to grant petitioner pay protection. Let it be noted that this specious plea was being taken almost four years after petitioner had superannuated and after petitioner had made grievances before this Court in non-settlement of his dues and after 20 years of petitioner’s absorption. If any thing was left the petitioner received a bonus kick by orders of recovery of all excess amount paid to him since 1984. This is what brought the petitioner to this Court. While adjourning the matter at the first hearing, this Court stayed any proceedings for recovery. State has filed two counter affidavits. In both the affidavits, the basic plea is that the Finance Department did not concur to grant petitioner pay protection and, accordingly, petitioner’s pay was being revised. The pay protection was being revised 20 years after employment/absorption and four years after superannuation. - 3 - In my view, there cannot be anything more arbitrary. Petitioner was permanent employee and pursuant to Government policy decision, he was absorbed in Government service upon virtual winding up of the Corporation with pay protection. Now, after 20 years, Government cannot be permitted to turn back and take away the pay protection as given to the petitioner and instead of settling the dues of the petitioner, petitioner is made liable to refund substantial amount to the Government. It is not a matter of correction. A decision which could have been and which ought to have been taken at the time of absorption itself i.e. 20 years back can now not be permitted specially four years after petitioner has superannuated. This is patently arbitrary. First to deny pay protection and then to take that decision at such a late stage cannot be sustained. I, therefore, have no option but to allow the writ petition. The three orders, revising the pay of the petitioner, as contained in Anneuxre-5 series, as passed by the Director, Agriculture, Bihar dated 28.02.2004, are accordingly quashed. The Director, Agriculture is directed to give effect to the first time bound promotion, ACP and the pay revision from its due dates to the petitioner and finally settle the service period and post retiral dues of the petitioner and ensure payment thereof in full within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)