AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Kanupriya, learned Advocate for the State.
The petitioner, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to extend pay scale of Rs. 8,000–13,500/- in place of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- as on 01.01.1996 in view of Fitment Committee report dated 12.01.2004 read with the pronouncement of this Court in CWJC No.22597 of 2012 and in terms with Clause 4(c) of the Bihar Litigation Policy.
The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass to the extent that the petitioner, after having successfully passed the 35th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by BPSC, was duly appointed as District Jail Superintendent vide Memo No.2554 dated 18.06.1990. After having served many places, the petitioner was transferred to Sitamarhi and thereafter District Jail Superintendent, Kishanganj. The service of the petitioner was duly confirmed and subsequent thereto, on the basis of the recommendation, afore-noted, the other identically situated persons were allowed the 5th Pay Revision scale.
It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the recommendation of the Pay Commission which categorically prescribes that a Jail Superintendent shall be entitled to get pay scale of Rs. 8,000–13,500/-, the petitioner has been allowed only Rs. 6,500–10,500/-.
Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, some of the juniors to the petitioner along with others have approached this Court in CWJC No. 22597 of 2012, and this Court, after careful consideration of the recommendation made by the Fitment Appellate Committee vide its order dated 27.06.2014, has been pleased to hold as follows:
“As aforementioned in view of the Jail Service Rules (Annexure-C) that the Bihar Jail Service consists of two branches i.e. the Senior Branch and Junior Branch. The petitioners are admittedly in the Junior Branch as they have not been given any promotion to the Senior Branch. The petitioners have been working as Superintendent, District Jail and they have their own separate cadre of Jail Superintendent (Junior Branch) in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4,000/- till 31.12.1995. There is no decision or resolution brought on the record on behalf of the respondents in support of their stand that the persons working on the post of Superintendent, District Jail in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4,000/- till 31.12.1995 have become Sub Jail, Superintendent from 01.01.1996 and would be receiving their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-, In the resolution dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-2) it has been stated in paragraph 4 that "समयक ववचारोपरानत राजय सरकार ने उपयुकत वनररयो को धयान मे रखते हुए संलगन अनुसूची के अनुरप वदनांक 01.01.1996 के प्रभाव से पुनरीवकत वेतनमान सवीकृत करने का वनररय वलया है ।" and the attached schedule shows that the pay scale of Superintendent, District Jail has been replaced from Rs.2200-4,000/-to Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. It further appears, that a new pay scale of Rs.6500-10,500/- has been introduced for the post of Sub Jail, Superintendent but that will obviously be applicable to person appointed as Sub Jail, Superintendent after 01.01.1996. By no stretch, the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/- be accepted as the replaced pay scale for the Superintendent, District Jail holding the said post from before 01.01.1996. As such, this Court does not find any reason to deny the revised/replaced scale of pay of Rs.8,000-13,500/- from 01.01.1996 to the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to receive their salary in the revised/replaced pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- from 01.01.1996. The respondents are directed to pay the salary to the petitioners in this revised/replaced scale and also to pay the arrears with interest @ 8% per annum after calculating the same in accordance with law within three months from date of receipt/production of a copy of this order”
The order of the learned Single Judge was questioned before the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 4 of 2015; however, the order of the learned Single Judge stood affirmed. The SLP preferred by the State of Bihar was also turned down, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has been deprived from his entitlement of the pay scale of Rs. 8,000–13,500 as also the benefit of ACP/MACP.
Learned Advocate for the State at this juncture submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and, as such, his claim is required to be considered in the light of the materials available on record, and for the said purpose seeks a short adjournment to apprise this Court with regard to factual and legal position.
Having considered the nature of the grievance as also the fact that the issue has already been settled regarding the entitlement of pay scale of Jail Superintendent, besides the Government has come out with Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011 to implement the decision to all similarly situated persons in case any issue is settled by the Hon'ble Court, this Court deems it fit and proper to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Home Department), preferably within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order.
Suffice it to observe that if the claim of the petitioner is found identical to those of the persons with whom the petitioner is seeking parity, especially Respondent Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16, who are said to be juniors to the petitioner in CWJC No. 22597 of 2012, the identical benefits must be accorded to the petitioner within a further period of eight weeks.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.