Sashi Kanti Pandit vs The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar and Others

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties.

In this writ petition, the Writ Petitioner, who is a retired employee of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to give him the same pay scale of the post of Chief Accounts Officer at par with the Chief Accounts Officer working in Patna Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner, the Chief Accounts Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation was getting the pay Scale of Rs. 3,700 -5,000 whereas, the petitioner, who retired from the service as Chief Accounts Officer on 31.01.2004, was getting a lower pay scale of Rs. 1,400 - 2,600 which, according to the petitioner, is against the order and direction passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 1991 (R) wherein, the High Court Issued a writ of mandamus to the State of Bihar to re-fix the scale of pay of the employees of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation at par with the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation.

According to the writ petitioner, he was initially appointed as an Assistant by the Ranchi Municipality in the year 1964 and, thereafter, in the year 1973, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. In the year 1977, he was allowed to perform the duties of Accountant and, thereafter, when Ranchi Municipal Corporation was created in the year 1979, he was asked to perform the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Accounts Officer by Issue of an order contained in Annexure-3 dated 11.04.1980.

Further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1991, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Karamchari Sangh filed a Writ Petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 1991 (R) in which, direction was made by this Court to the State to refix the salary of the employees of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation at par with the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation. When the order of this Court passed in the Writ Petition was not being complied with, a contempt application was filed being M.J.C. No. 355 of 1996 (R). The said M.J.C. No. 355 of 1996 (R) was disposed of on 15.11.1996 by order as contained In Annexure-4 considering the fact that Mr. A.K. Singh, Deputy Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation gave an undertaking to disburse the amount of Rs. 80 lac, which was released by the State Government for payment of salaries to the employees of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though his counter part working In Patna Municipal Corporation, was getting the pay scale of Rs. 3,700 - 5,000 but the petitioner, who was also working as Chief Accounts Officer and retired as such from Ranchi Municipal Corporation, was not given the said pay scale rather, he was given a lower pay scale of Rs. 1,400 - 2,600. The petitioner submits that in view of the Judgment of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 1991 (R) he was entitled to the same pay scale which was being given to his counter part in the Patna Municipal Corporation.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. - 1 - i.e. the Secretary, Urban Development. Department. Government of Bihar. By controverting the claim of the petitioner, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that it is wrong to say that the Chief Accounts Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation was being paid salary in the scale of Rs. 3,700 -5,000. In fact his pay scale was also Rs. 1,400 - 2,600 which was the scale of the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the request for enhancement of pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation to Rs. 3,700 - 5,000 was rejected in view of the letter of Government dated 21.02.2000 as contained in Annexure-A. Therefore; it is wrong to say that there is any disparity in the pay scale of the petitioner i.e. the Chief Accounts Officer of Ranchi Municipal Corporation vis-a-vis the pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation.

A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation wherein in para 6, it is stated that the pay scale of the post of Chief Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation was also sanctioned and approved as Rs. 1,400- 2,600.

Though the petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit and has tried to show that in fact Devendra Kumar Roy, who was posted as Chief Accounts Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation, was getting the pay scale of Rs. 3,700 - 5,000. and in support of that fact, he has also annexed an office order dated 24.08.2000 (Annexure-10) Issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation to show that the Chief Accounts Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation was being paid the pay scale of Rs. 3,700 -5,000.

A letter as contained in Annexure-11 dated 23.08.1991 has also been annexed with reply to the counter affidavit to show that the pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer at Patna was Rs. 3,700 - 5,000.

A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation stating some additional facts. It has been stated that in terms of the Order passed in M.J.C. No. 130 of 1999 (R) dated 06.09.1999, by a Division Bench of this Court, the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi was directed to hold inquiry with respect to the financial irregularities being committed in Ranchi Municipal Corporation and on inquiry, it revealed that the petitioner was also Involved in committing some financial irregularities which made him not eligible to hold the post of Chief Accounts Officer In Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

It Is also stated that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Accounts Officer was made subject to the condition that he shall pass the Local Self Government Accounts Examination within two years from the date of his promotion, but the petitioner did not pass the said examination and, therefore, he was not entitled to hold the post of Chief Accounts Officer.

Subsequently, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was found guilty for the charges levelled against him and accordingly, by order dated 11.09.2000, the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal corporation awarded him the punishment of stoppage of two annual Increments. Thereafter, the Administrator of Ranchi Municipal Corporation requested the Secretary Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to depute a person from the office of the Accountant General to hold the post of the Chief Accounts Officer.

During the pendency of this writ petition, the State of Bihar was bifurcated and from 15.11.2000, new State of Jharkhand was created and, thereafter, the State of Jharkhand was also addedas a party respondent in this writ petition.

A counter affidavit on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has also been filed, wherein, it is stated that now the Patna Municipal Corporation falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar whereas, the Ranchi Municipal Corporation falls within the State of Jharkhand. It Is also stated that the Government of Bihar has already rejected the demand of Patna Municipal Corporation to fix the pay sale of Chief Accounts Officer at Rs. 3,700-5,000.

The facts which has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar as well as the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has been reiterated In the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand and it Is stated that the petitioner''s promotion to the post of Chief Accounts Officer was subject to the condition of his passing of Local Self Government Accounts Examination which he did not pass and, therefore, he was not entitled to hold the post of Chief Accounts Officer.

After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and on consideration of the facts as stated above, the question to be decided in this writ petition is - as to whether the petitioner''s claim for giving him the pay scale of Rs. 3,700 - 5,000 is legal and valid and whether the scale of pay of the Chief Accounts Officer was prescribed as Rs. 3,700 - 5,000 or it was Rs. 1,400-2,600.

So far as question of pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer either at Patna or at Ranchi is concerned, it appears that the petitioner also does not dispute that the prescribed scale of pay of Chief Accounts Officer by the State Government was Rs. 1,400 -2,600 but he claims the scale of Rs. 3,700 - 5,000 on the ground that the said scale was being given to the Chief Accounts Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation.

Apart from that, from the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, it is clear that there was some demand/proposal made by the Patna Municipal Corporation to fix the pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer in the scale of Rs. 3,700 - 5,000 but that was rejected by the Government of Bihar, therefore, the pay admissible to Chief Accounts Officer of the Municipal Corporation remained the same i.e. Rs. 1,400 - 2,600 and not Rs. 3,700 - 5,000.

So far as the claim of the petitioner that Devendra Roy. the Chief Accounts Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation was getting the pay scale of Rs. 3,700 - 5,000. it appears that the same has been seriously controverted and disputed by the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Urban Development as well as by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. No such document has been annexed with the writ petition by the petitioner so as to come to the conclusion that the aforesaid Devendra Roy, who was Chief Accounts Officer, of Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna, was in fact being given the scale of pay of Rs. 3,700 - 5,000.

From the counter affidavit of the State of Jharkhand as well as from the counter affidavit filed by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, it appears that there is no dispute of the fact that the promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Chief Accounts Officer was subject to the condition that he would pass the Local Self Government Accounts Examination within a period of two years from the date of his promotion but the petitioner admittedly did not pass the said examination. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. The petitioner did not qualify to retain the post of Chief Accounts Officer since he did not clear the Local Self Government Accounts Examination.

In view of the discussions and findings, the petitioner is held to be not entitled to any relief as claimed by him in this writ petition.

Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.