AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 10-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-
“I. For issuance of an appropriate direction/s, writ/s, order/s for quashing office order dated 19.11.2021 contained in memo no. 1492 whereby and under after cancelling earlier notification contained in memo no. 94 dated 11.01.1991, direction has been issued for recovery of excess payment made to the employees, either they have superannuated, dead or are getting pension or are in service, since their pay scale should have been Rs. 975 at the initial stage with effect from 01.01.1986 for those junior field investigator who were appointed as such.
II. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/ direction to the respondents not to recover any amount from the employees appointed as Junior Field Investigator with effect from 01.01.1986 or thereafter, since pay scale of Rs. 1000/- was fixed as per notification dated 11.01.1991 contained in memo no. 94 and there was no misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioners or other similarly situated persons.
III. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s to the respondents not to issue any show cause to the petitioners or other retired as well as working junior field investigator for the recovery of amount which has been paid to them after fixing their initial pay scale in Rs. 1000/- as per notification dated 19.01.1991 contained in memo no. 94.
IV. To pass such other order or orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated herein below.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Junior Field Investigator on 08.01.1986, his service was confirmed on 07.01.1999 and after completion of 60 years he superannuated w.e.f. 31.12.2020. Thereafter, his PPO was issued by the Accountant General (A & E), Bihar. Counsel further submits that the petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Junior Field Investigator on 15.04.1988, his service was confirmed on 07.01.1999. At the time of filing the writ petition, petitioner no. 2 was not superannuated as his date of superannuation was 31.05.2022, but during pendency of the writ petition, he has already superannuated. Counsel submits that by a reasoned order, the pay of the petitioners was fixed by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Planning and Development, Govt. of Bihar in which it was decided that those persons who have been appointed on 01.01.1986 or thereafter shall be entitled for initial salary of Rs. 1,000/-, but the monetary benefits shall be provided to them w.e.f. 01.03.1989 and no arrear shall be paid for the period 01.01.1986 to 28.02.1989. Counsel submits that the Director, Planning Department, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation has issued a letter contained in Memo No. 94 dated 11.01.1991 (Annexure-P/2) which was duly communicated to the Accountant General Department, Finance Department as well as Planning and Development Department. Counsel further submits that after lapse of 30 years, a letter contained in Memo No. 1492 dated 19.11.2021 (Annexure-P/1) has been issued by the Statistical and Evaluation Directorate now named as Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Planning and Development by which the Director has withdrawn the said letter dated 11.01.1991 and changed initial salary as Rs. 975/- instead of Rs. 1,000/- with specific direction that according to the change of the initial pay scale, whatever be the amount excessive taken from the retired and dead person, shall be realized.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that specific pleading has been made in para 7 of the writ petition that a letter contained in Memo No. 94 dated 11.01.1991 has been issued and in the said letter, it has been categorically indicated that there was difference in pay scale for the Junior Field Investigators who were appointed on 01.01.1986 or thereafter, their pay scale was in Rs. 535-765, whereas, they ought to have got pay scale of Rs. 975-1540. This anomaly crept up in pay scale of Junior Field Investigators who delved under the Finance Department and in informally, it was advised that in place of initial pay scale of Rs. 975/-, one increment of Rs. 25/- may be added in their pay scale. In result, Rs. 1,000/- may be allowed since no increment was given to them and with this direction Memo No. 94 dated 11.01.1991 has been issued by respondent no. 4. Counsel submits that counter affidavit has been filed, but in the counter affidavit, no clear cut averment has come in response of pleading made in para 7 of the writ petition save and except that it is a matter of record and hence requires no comment. Counsel submits that the letter impugned i.e. Annexure-P/1 is basically the letter which is not sustainable in the eyes of law in which after 30 years of issuance of earlier letter has been reviewed by an Administrative Officer the Director without granting any opportunity in which direction was made to realize the money from the dead persons also.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the decision has been taken at the level of Finance Department and only due to this reason, the said office order dated 19.11.2021 has been issued. He submits that the Director has to follow the direction of the Finance Department and it is due to this reason, such office order has been issued.
In the light of submissions made and after perusal of both the letters i.e. Annexure-P/1 (order impugned) and Annexure-P/2 which is of 1991 issued by the same Directorate, this Court become very much surprised that how an Administration Authority after lapse of about 30 years can review its own letter. It is also surprising for this Court that how the payment which has already been made to an employee who is now dead could be realized. This Court is further surprised that in response of pleading made in para 7 of the writ petition there is absolutely no answer in the counter affidavit save and except stated that it is a matter of record.
This Court upon going through the pleadings concludes that with regard to the statement made in para 7 of the writ petition, there is no answer available to the respondent no. 4. This Court upon minute reading of the record finds that the said decision was taken by the respondent authorities in the light of direction made in case of Surendra Singh who was appointed as Junior Field Investigator after 01.01.1986, which has come in para 7 of the counter affidavit itself. It is made clear that the Government of Bihar has framed a policy namely, Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 whose Clause 4.C is very much relevant which states as follows:-
“4.C.1. A good number of cases are from the category of similar cases. Each Government Department will aim to consider and settle the claim of the representationist/ applicant-employee/ citizen, if the claim is found covered by any decision of the Court. Many service matters of this nature, can be disposed of at the level of the Department itself without compelling the litigant to come to the Court. In this manner, the Government Departments would be acting as efficient litigants.”
It is itself the stand of the State that due to the decision made in the case of Surendra Singh who has filed the case to fix their initial pay scale at the rate of 1000-1540 and it was allowed in his favour, then the similarly situated person i.e. Junior Field Investigator if paid the said initial salary of Rs. 1000-1540/-, there is nothing wrong.
Hence, due to the aforesaid reason, the letter contained in Memo No. 1492 dated 19.11.2021 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby set aside and the present writ petition stands allowed.