IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No 1698 of 2010 Nandu Singh, son of late Ram Kathin Singh, resident of village – Bajitpur, Police Station – Ghoshi, District - Jehanabad - Petitioner Versus 1 State of Bihar 2 Sri Anup Mukherjee, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 Sri Dipak Kumar, Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 4 Sri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 5 Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, Agriculture Production Commissioner, at present known as Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 6 Sri R K Khanlelwal, Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 7 Sri B Rajendra, Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (abolished), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 3 30.11.2011 This case has a long history. Petitioner was an employee in the service of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board which was dissolved in 2006. In the Repealing Act of 2006, Section 6 thereof provided that no employee would suffer. He would continue to get all remunerations as he was earlier getting till he is suitably absorbed in any other Government Department. Petitioner was left out. Ultimately, upon intervention of this Court, he was absorbed but as is usual at a lower pay scale leaving further grievance. When the contempt application was pursued further, State filed a supplementary show cause stating that it suddenly realized that the petitioner had been wrongly absorbed on a lower post. Accordingly, petitioner has now been absorbed on the post of Block Panchayati Raj Officer in the pay scale of Rs 9,300/- – 34,800/- with grade pay of Rs 4,200/- . 2 Petitioner’s grievance is two folds. He submits that the Block Panchayati Raj Officer is a post inferior to his status and secondly that even though this decision of the State was taken sometime back, it has yet to be implemented because of which substantial payments, that are due to him, are not being made. Having considered the matter, in my view, State has substantially complied with the order passed in the writ proceeding by this correction and absorption. Merely because Panchayati Raj Officer, at one time was in a lower pay scale, does not mean that his status continues to be lower than the petitioner. Petitioner does not dispute that the pay band given to the petitioner is what is actually he was and is entitled to. If the pay of a post is upgraded and that post is offered to the petitioner, I do not think State is committing any mistake. However, I direct that the State would concretize the final decision within a month and within a month thereafter ensure full payment of petitioner’s dues being complete salary that was payable to him on the correct pay scale. With these directions and observations, this application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)