IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12769 of 2002 RAM CHANDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Man Mohan and Mr.Vikas Mohan For the State: Mr.Girijish Kumar,JC to AAG-III For the Housing Board: Mr.Amresh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha For the Accountant General: Mr.J.P.Karn. 9 1.9.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has moved this court for direction to the respondents to fix his pensionary benefits on the basis of pay scale of Draftsman Grade-II drawn by him on the date of his retirement. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed under the government in the year 1964 as a Blue Printer. However, subsequently in the year 1967 he was promoted as Tracer. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner along with a large number of other persons was transferred to the Bihar State Housing Board with effect from 1.9.1972. The notification transferring the service of the petitioner and others provided that they shall continue under the same service condition and will be entitled to pay, increment, due promotion etc. Thereafter, by notification of the Board dated 13.3.1978 as contained in annexure 2 to the writ petition petitioner was promoted to the grade of Draftsman Grade-II. In the notification it was stated that the promotion of the petitioner was on provisional basis for three months in anticipation of approval of Urban Development Department (Housing). Thereafter, the petitioner continued as such and while working on the post of Draftsman Grade-II under the Board he retired on 31.12.1999. As the petitioner was not paid his retrial dues he moved this court in C.W.J.C.No.12532 of 2000 which 2 was disposed of by a general direction dated 5.12.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the authorities of the Board for fixation of pensionary benefits. It appears that the petitioner’s case was referred to the State Government and the matter was placed before the Finance Department of the State Government. The promotion granted to the petitioner was scrutinized by the Finance Department and on its approval, an office order was issued from Urban Development Department (Housing) dated 18.6.2002, a copy whereof is contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition. Thus, it is apparent that the provisional promotion of the petitioner vide notification dated 13.3.1978 of the Housing Board, annexure-2, was approved by the Urban Development Department (Housing) and the Finance Department and thereafter his pay fixation order was issued by the Urban Development Department (Housing) vide annexure-3. However ignoring this fixation, on the basis of some earlier orders of the Urban Development Department petitioner’s pension payment order was issued by the Accountant General fixing his pension on the basis of pay scale of lessor post of Tracer vide annexures 4 and 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has moved this court. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in this case. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was entitled to only those benefits which would have been available in the State Government had his service been not put on deputation of the Housing Board. Since there was no promotional post of Draftsman Grade-II from the post of Tracer under the State Government, the petitioner was not entitled to 3 such promotion. In the circumstances, the respondents claimed that the petitioner’s pension was fixed treating him to be in the scale of Tracer on the date of his retirement. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit does not take into account the approval of the Finance Department and the office order of Urban Development Department (Housing) as contained in annexure-3 from which it is evident that promotion of the petitioner to the post of Draftsman Grade-II was given post facto approval by them and accordingly his pay scale was fixed by the notification of the Government. The petitioner drew his last increment on 1.7.1979 and his pay was fixed at Rs.5100/-. Obviously, the petitioner continued in the scale and retired as such. In the circumstances, the pay scale of the petitioner as approved by the Finance Department of the government and notified by the Urban Development Department (Housing) vide annexure-3 has not been taken into account for fixing his pension and granting him pensionary benefits. In the circumstances, P.P.O. issued by the Accountant General fixing the pay scale of the petitioner treating him to be in the scale of Tracer as contained in annexures 4 and 5. are hereby quashed and the respondents-authorities of the Urban Development Department (Housing) are directed to issue fresh sanction order in respect of the petitioner for fixing his pension in the light of said annexure-3 preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the sanction order the Accountant General will issue necessary authority slip 4 within a period of one month re-fixing the pension of the petitioner.. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Full Bench in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs, Ram Tawakya Singh & Ors., reported in 2006(1) PLJR 476 wherein in respect of similar employees transferred to the Housing Board this court held them to be entitled to pension on the basis of last pay drawn and directed to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 10% on delayed payment. In view of the direction of the Full Bench in respect of similar employees put on deputation under the Housing Board this court find it fit and proper that the petitioner be allowed 10% interest on arrears accrued to him on account of re-fixation of his pension from the date of issue of annexure- 3, necessary authority slip in this regard shall also be issued within the same time. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Md.S. (J.N.Singh,J.)