IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12197 of 2003 RAJENDRA PRASAD, son of Late Jichhu Ram, resident of Dariyapur Chaintola, P.O. and Police Station – Kadamkuan, District – Patna – 800 003. ---------------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Patna Regional Development Authority through its Chairman, Maurya Lok Complex, Block ‘C’, 2nd Floor, Dakbunglow Road, Patna, Police Station – Kotwali, District – Patna – 800 001. 2. The Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok Complex, Block ‘C’, 2nd Floor, Dakbunglow Road, Police Station – Kotwali, District – Patna – 800 001. 3. The Chief Accounts Officers, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok Complex, Block ‘C’, 2nd Floor, Dakbunglow Road, Police Station – Kotwali, District – Patna – 800 001. 4. The Patna Municipal Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer. ---------------- Respondents. ------------------- 9 12.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner superannuated as Assistant Senior Selection Grade on 31.01.2002, from the Patna Regional Development Authority as constituted under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act (as it then was). The petitioner has filed the present writ application for payment of his retiral dues as per the last pay certificate and for payment of two months arrears of salary which was held to be payable by the Vice Chairman of P.R.D.A. but has not been paid because of pendency of this case. Counter affidavits and rejoinder to the counter affidavit have been filed and with the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Petitioner states that he retired in the pay scale of Rs. - 2 - 1,800 – 3,330 which was the current pay scale as per the decision of the Board of P.R.D.A. It is stated that the 5th Pay Revision Recommendation were received and accepted by the State Government by resolution dated 18th December, 1989, a copy whereof is annexed to the writ application. In paragraph no. 11 whereof it was stated thus:- “Where the revised scale of pay for any existing junior selection grade has not been indicated in Schedule II the revised scale for that existing junior selection grade shall be the revised scale one level immediately above the basic grade revised scale. The revised pay scale for the senior selection grade unless otherwise indicated in Schedule II shall be the revised scale one level immediately above the junior selection grade revised scale. The pay scale for super time selection grade shall be the revised scale one level immediately above the senior selection grade revised scale. It is clarified that only the normal replacement scales shall be taken into consideration for any selection grade in this manner. No sub-scale at any level shall be admissible as a selection grade scale”. Petitioner being an Assistant (Clerk) his revised normal replacement scale was Rs. 1,500 – 2750 as per Schedule I to - 3 - the said resolution. On being granted junior selection grade and then senior selection grade, he was entitled to two increments in scale which as per Schedule I would take him in the pay scale of Rs. 1,800 – 3,330. It is in consonance with this, office order no. 151 of 1994 dated 05.07.1994 (part of Annexure – 1 series) issued by the Board of P.R.D.A. after a conscious decision in the matter which decision has also been brought on record in subsequent supplementary affidavit being Annexure – 16. It is pursuant to these conscious decisions of the Board of P.R.D.A. that the petitioner was receiving his remunerations at the time of his superannuation and it is on basis of the said last pay drawn that his retiral dues were calculated as per Annexure – 12, the same should have been paid accordingly. On the other hand, learned counsel for the erstwhile P.R.D.A. submits that P.R.D.A. in terms of Section 81 of the Act has authority to frame its own regulations for pay scales of its employees. It accordingly by Annexure – 6 fixed pay by office order no. 33 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004. As noted above, this decision which is also now impugned, has been taken two years after petitioner superannuated and even though it had the effect of substantially reducing his pay scale was done without notice to him, apparently pursuant to a decision of this court to which I would advert later. - 4 - Having considered the matter, in my view, there is no denial that the Board did take a decision being resolution no.2 of 1994 dated 16.04.1994, Annexure – 16 wherein it clearly provided that the basic pay of Assistant would be Rs, 1,500 – 2750 and thereafter it took a decision that so far as the junior selection grade of that pay would be 1,640 – 2,900 and senior selection grade pay would be 1,800 – 3,330. Once this fact is accepted by the Board which was competent in terms of Section 81 of the Act to take such a decision and such a decision was taken and then communicated by office order no. 151 of 1994 dated 05.07.1994, on basis whereof petitioner last pay certificate was drawn up, then it is too late for the Board to resile from the said decision. Further nothing has been brought on record to show that the Board of P.R.D.A. ever took a conscious decision to resile from the said two specific decisions as noted above. It so happened that under P.R.D.A., there appears to be about 53 categories of posts. It is apparent that they were all required to receive remunerations equivalent to the pay scales payable to Secretariat staffs, but about 26 categories were able to get their pay scales fixed above the same. This was then reduced. This decision was challenged before this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 7050/2001, 7051/2001 and 7226/2001, which was decided by a Bench of this Court on 19.08.2002 and has since been reported in Pramod Kumar Singh Versus P.R.D.A. reported in 2002(4) PLJR 616. This court held that the P.R.D.A. - 5 - had the authority to fix remunerations. This court based its judgment on facts which were entirely different and a different controversy which did not effect the petitioner because petitioner were not in the category who had been given pay scales above, the pay scales of the secretariat employees. But it appears that having been permitted to examine pay scales, the authority constituted a three men committee which made a recommendation and it is on that recommendation that Annexure – 6 being office order no. 33 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004 was issued. This office order would show that petitioner has been put in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640 – 2,900. If we see this resolution along with resolution of the Board being resolution no. 2 of 1994 dated 16.04.1994 (Annexure - 16). It would be seen that petitioner has been put in the pay scale of junior selection grade and not senior selection grade. Thus the said pay fixation as done by Annexure – 6, in so far as petitioner is concerned cannot be sustained. It is then submitted that what the petitioner has been granted is in fact the sub-scale, but then if we refer to the recommendation as accepted in respect of the 5th Pay Commission, the sub-scale given for the post of Assistant is Rs. 1,600 – 2,780 and not Rs. 1,640 – 2,900. Thus, this is not even sub-scale and in view of the decision as noted above as accepted by the State Government it is either a sub-scale or a jump of two grades that it is to be given if we refer to Schedule I. - 6 - Thus the decision as contained in Annexure – 16 dated 16.04.1994, was correct and accordingly petitioner’s last pay was correctly determined in the pay scale of Rs. 1,800 – 3,330. The consequence would be that the petitioner would be entitled to his retiral benefits to be calculated on the basis of said pay scale of Rs. 1,800 – 3,330 as determined by the 5th Pay Commission, subject to revision as may be permissible. So far as the arrears of two months salary is concerned, P.R.D.A. has not seriously dispute the same, in fact it is admitted that the Vice-Chairman has sanctioned the payment thereof. The payment was being withheld pending this writ application. As this application stands disposed of favourably to the writ petitioner, it is accepted that the balance of two months arrears of salary would accordingly be paid to the petitioner also. As the petitioner had superannuated in 2002, seven years ago it is expected that the matter of payment of petitioner’s retiral dues and arrears of salary as aforesaid would be taken by the competent authority and payment made within two months of production/communication of the copy of this order before the competent authority. In the result, this writ application stands allowed. Rajeev/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)