IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10613 of 2003 Shri Baleshwar Prasad, Son of Late Ram Narayan Mahto, Resident of Village Lakshmanpur, Post Office Kamala Gopalpur, Police Station Bihta, District Patna, State Bihar. He is a retired Treasurer- Guard. He superannuated/retired on 30.6.2001 from the post of Treasure Guard from the office of Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Karbigahia, Patna-800 001. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Under Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation Building, Patna. 6. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 8. The Secretary to the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 9. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Anisabad, Patna-800 002. 10. The Superintending Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Circle, Patna-800 001. 11. The Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patna. 12. The Treasury Officer, Secretariate Treasury, Nirman Bhawan, Patna. ------- Respondents ----------- 3 13.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. This writ application, pertaining to certain benefit of time bound promotion as with regard to the petitioner who had retired on 30.6.2001, for all practical purposes has become infructuous save and except for the recovery which was sought to be made from the 2 petitioner as a consequence of the order of cancellation of his time bound promotion. The original petitioner, namely, Baleshwar Prasad, who had in fact filed this writ application on 25.9.2003 for the following relief; “1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside of:- (a) the letter No. 3/stha.- 4- 16/03-1403, dated- 28.2.2003, issued by the under Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (the Respondent No.4) to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Patna (the Respondent No.9) as contained in the Annexure-17 to this petition. (b) the Memo/Letter No. 1603, dated 8.4.2003, issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Patna. (the Respondent No.9) and its copies were forwarded to the Accountant General, Bihar Ranchi/Patna, the superintending Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Circle, Patna, the Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patna and 3 the petitioner for information and necessary action, as contained in the Annexure-18 to this petition and (c) the Letter No. 472, dated 10.5.2003, issued by the Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patna (the Respondent No.11) and its copies were forwarded to the Treasury Officer, Secretariate Treasury, Nirman Bhawan, Patna (the Respondent No.12) and the petitioner for information and necessary action, as contained in the Aneexure-19 whereby and whereunder the Provisional second Time Bound Promotion along with consequential monetary benefits and others granted/allowed to the petitioner with effect from 23.6.1992 has been cancelled and ordered to be recovered the excess amount taken by the petitioner during his provisional Second Time Bound Promotion since counting /computation/calculation of past service period of Previous Post prior to the posting on the Treasure Guard of the petitioner is not to be done, which is bad, illegal, improper, unjust, malafide, 4 without jurisdiction and non- sustainable in the eye of law. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to restore and to allow the Second Time Bound Promotion along with consequential monetary benefits and others with effect from 23.6.1992 retrospectively to the petitioner since the petitioner has completed total period of service as 34 years 7 days from his date of joining/appointment in the service as peon on 23.6.1967 till his superannuation on 30.6.2001 as the Treasure Guard from the office of the Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patna. It is clarified that the First Time Bound Promotion and its consequential benefits on the post of the Treasure Guard granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the Letter No. 116, dated 29.1.2002 of the Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patna (Ennexure-10) and his pay scale was refixed. It is stated that the Second Time Bound Promotion was granted to the Petitioner by the Annexure-13 with effect from 23.6.1992 by the respondent Chief Engineer, Water 5 Resources (Irrigation) Department, Patna (the Respondent No.9) in the light of the Letter No. 432, dated 13.9.2001 of the Secretary to the Divisional commissioner, Patna Division, patna (the Annexure-9) and the Resolution No. 10770, dated- 13.12.1981 of the Finance Department, Patna which was later on cancelled by the Government which contained in the Annexures 17, 18 and 19 to this petition. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents after restoration/allow of the Second Time Bound Promotion and its consequential monetary benefits to the Petitioner, proper the pay-scale of the petitioner may be fixed and revised and it may be paid to the petitioner with effect from 23.6.1992 retrospectively. Further, the pension of the petitioner may be also revised and refixed in new pay-scale after granting/allowing the Second Time Bound Promotion and its consequential monetary benefits with effect 23.6.1992 to the petitioner with law and the same may be paid to the petitioner forthwith. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate 6 writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside of the impugned Letter No. 116, dated- 29.1.2002 of the Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patna contained in the Annexure-10, whereby and whereunder the First Time Bound Promotion and its consequential monetary benefits granted to the Petitioner with effect from 16.6.1979 on the post of the Treasure Guard has been cancelled in the light of the Letters No.- 432, dated 13.9.2001 of the Secretary to the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna and the Letter No. 35, dated 7.1.2002 of the Superintending Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Circle, Patna and therefore his pay scale was refixed and changed as he was getting prior to his First Time Bound Promotion on the post of the Treasure Guard w.e.f. 16.6.1979 which is bad in law. (v) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for partial quashing and setting aside of the impugned Letter No. 432, dated 13.9.2001 of the Secretary to the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna as contained in the Annexure-9 whereby and whereunder it is mentioned that the First 7 Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner with effect from 16.6.1989 on the post of Treasure Guard is not proper in accordance with provisions of the Resolution No. 10770, dated 30.12.1981 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, which is bad in law. (vi) For issuance of a writ in the nature a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to allow/grant:- (a) revised pay scale in the pay- scale of Rs. 400 to 500 with effect from 1.4.1981 and may be paid to the petitioner since the order for enhancement of pay scale from Rs. 180 to 242 for all the Treasure Guards including the petitioner was passed by the Govt. of Bihar with effect from 1.5.1980 onwards. The Govt. of Bihar enforced the 4th Pay Revision of Pay Scale with effect from 1.4.1981 but the Pay Scale of the Petitioner was fixed on the original pay scale with effect from 1.4.1981 as Rs. 375 to 480 which is bad in law, false, unjust, improper and incorrect. The pay scale of the petitioner on 31.3.1981 was as Rs. 214/- and the Pay 8 Scale was fixed in the pay Scale of Rs. 214/-. The revised Pay Scale of the petitioner should be fixed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 400 to 540 but it was done so at that time. But the Pay Scale of the Petitioner was fixed on the original Pay Scale of Rs. 165 to 204/- (revised Pay Scale Rs. 375 to 480) with effect from 1.4.1981 which is illegal, false, improper, unjust and incorrect and non- sustainable in the eye of law. The benefits of revised Pay Scale from Rs. 400 to 540 should be also granted in the revised Pension and the same should be paid to the petitioner forthwith. (b) The Pay Scale of the petitioner was also fixed on the original Pay Scale of Rs. 800 to 1150 with effect from 1.1.1986 which is bad, illegal, improper, incorrect, false and non-sustainable in the eye of law. (c) The Pay-Scale of the petitioner was also fixed on the original Pay Scale of Rs. 1130 with effect from 1.1.1996 which is bad, illegal, improper, incorrect, false and non-sustainable in the eye of law. At present, the Pay Scale 9 of petitioner may be fixed in the revised Pay Scale of Rs. 825 to 1200 or more or other for the First Time Bound Promotion as the Treasure Guard and the same may be paid to the petitioner after granting First Time Bound Promotion and after superannuation of the petitioner may be fixed on new proper Pay Scale in accordance with law and the same may be paid to the petitioner forthwith in his pension. (vii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside of the order impugned actions of the respondents which are arbitrary, illegal, malafide and against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of law. (viii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondents to award exemplary compensation/cost to the petitioner alongwith costs of this case.” has also died on 17.6.2005 and today when the case has been called out, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he may be given time to file substitution petition. In the opinion of this Court, a period of nearly five years having elapsed from the 10 death of the petitioner, such prayer cannot be allowed and accordingly, this application must be dismissed as having become infructuous. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)