IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.55 OF 2006 ***** 1. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna. 2. The Chairman, The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna. …. …. Respondents-Appellants Versus Ramji Prasad Srivastava son of Late Lalji Lal, resident of village – Semaria, Via-Bagahi Bazar, District-Gopalganj. …. …. Petitioner-Respondent ------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Deva Kumar Prasad Sinha, Advocate Mr. Birendra Prasad, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 20th November, 2008. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited and its functionaries are in appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 21st November, 2005, passed by the Single Judge, whereby the pay fixation order in respect of the present respondent vide memo. dated 2nd February, 2004 has been quashed and set aside and the present appellants have been directed to recalculate the dues of the present respondent (original petitioner) on the basis of his pay as was fixed at Rs.1090/- with effect from 1st April, 1981. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant, ‘the Bank’ and the present respondent, ‘the petitioner’. - 2 - 3. That the petitioner joined the service of the Bank as Lower Division Assistant in the year 1964 is not in dispute. That he was promoted as Senior Assistant-cum-Accountant in 1968 and Branch Manager in 1974 is also admitted. That he retired on 28th February, 2001 is again an admitted position. The petitioner was not given annual increments from 1990 until his retirement and that necessitated filing of the writ petition by him. It appears that on 4th February, 2004 an office order was issued by the Bank withdrawing its earlier office order dated 4th December, 1989 and recalculating the petitioners pay at Rs.985 as on 1st April, 1981. The petitioner also put in issue legality of the office order dated 4th February, 2004. 4. The Bank justified the order dated 4th February, 2004 as according to it, upon revision of the pay-scale, effective from 1st April, 1981, the petitioner was entitled to pay of Rs.985 as on 1st April, 1981 and not Rs.1090, for which office order was issued earlier on 4th December, 1989. 5. The Single Judge was not persuaded by the stand of the Bank and while quashing and setting aside the office order dated 4th February, 2004, directed the Bank to recalculate the petitioner’s pay-scale on the basis that as on 1st April, 1981 his pay was fixed at Rs.1090. 6. The counsel for the Bank would submit that the office order dated 4th February, 2004 reflected the correct position of pay-scale and since the earlier office order dated 4th December, 1989 was erroneous, it was withdrawn. Relying upon a decision of this - 3 - Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Man Bahadur & Ors., 2004(3) PLJR 3, the counsel would submit that if any excess salary has been paid by the Bank to its employee, the Bank is entitled to recover the excess payment made due to wrong calculation. 7. We thoughtfully reflected over the matter and, in our considered view, the appeal has no merit at all. Save and except, the office order dated 4th February, 2004, whereby after superannuation of the petitioner, his pay-scale has been revised as on 1st April, 1981 by reducing it from Rs.1090 to Rs.985, no material has been placed on record, based on which such calculation has been arrived at. As a matter of fact, way back on 4th December, 1989, an office order came to be issued by the Bank, whereby petitioner’s pay came to be refixed at Rs.1090 as on 1st April, 1981. Based on that fixation, the petitioner’s salary came to be refixed and as on 30th March, 1989 his salary was fixed at Rs.1335/-. Had some material been produced by the Bank before the Court, the Court would have seen whether any error was committed in fixing the petitioner’s pay at Rs.1090 on 1st April, 1981 or not but nothing has been produced or shown to us. For consideration of fixation of petitioner’s pay as on 1st April, 1981, in view of revision of pay-scale from that date, the petitioner’s pay as on 31st March, 1981 was of vital importance. No material has been placed by the Bank in support of the statement made in the office order dated 4th February, 2004 that petitioner’s pay as on 31st March, 1981 was Rs.828. Although, a plea of wrong calculation - 4 - of pay as on 1st April, 1981 has been set up by the Bank but we find that no material or evidence in support thereof has either been placed or shown to the Court. In this view of the matter, the fixation of pay of the petitioner at Rs.1090 as on 1st April, 1981 vide office order dated 4th December, 1989 must be accepted as this was an accepted position of the Bank for more than 14 years until a fresh order came to be issued on 4th February, 2004. In the circumstances, if the Single Judge set aside the office order dated 4th February, 2004, and directed the Bank to recalculate the dues of the petitioner on the basis of his pay at Rs.1090 with effect from 1st April, 1981, as was fixed in the office order dated 4th December, 1989, cannot be said to be bad in law, justifying any interference by us. The consequential order passed by the Single Judge must also, therefore, follow. 8. In what we have discussed above, it is not necessary to discuss the decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board as it has no application to the facts of the present case. 9. Letters patent appeal has no merit. It is dismissed with no order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-