WRIT PETITION 5545 of 2015 on 1 January 1986

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi

2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi

3. Under Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi

4. Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi

5. Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi

6. Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Circle, Daltonganj (Medini Nagar), PO & PS Palamau, Dist. Palamau

7. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Division Gumla, Gumla, PO & PS Gumla, Dist. Gumla

8. State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, PO GPO, PS Bailey Road, Dist. Patna 800001 (Bihar)9. Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, PO GPO, PS Bailey Road, Dist. Patna 800001 (Bihar)

10. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, PO GPO, PS Bailey Road, Dist. Patna 800001 (Bihar)... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, JC to AAG

-------

07/17.02.2017Claiming that his pay has been fixed in a lower pay-scale than his junior, the petitioner seeks a direction for consequent payment of arrears of salary and 2[nd] ACP.

2. Heard.

3. Referring to the Chart of Replacement Pay-Scale (Chart-12) the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and one Pashupati Singh were in the basic pay of Rs. 1360 as on 01.01.1986 and the said Pashupati Singh was given Replacement Scale of Rs. 2674 whereas, the petitioner has been erroneously given the scale of Rs. 2540 as on 01.01.1986.

4. The petitioner, who was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 01.04.1989, retired on 31.10.2001. His grievance in respect of the alleged pay anomaly is solely based on the pay-scale granted to one Pashupati Singh who according to him was junior to him by one day. The petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1579 of 2010, during pendency of which he was granted 2[nd] ACP. The writ petition was disposed of on 30.01.2013 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. The petitioner instituted Contempt Case (Civil) No. 52 of 2014 for non-compliance of order dated 30.01.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1579 of 2010 which was closed on 02.05.2014 with a direction to the Engineer-in-Chief to comply with the order passed by the Writ Court. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner was decided by a speaking order dated 28.03.2014.

Conclusion

5. In the counter-affidavit in the context of pay-fixation of Pashupati Singh, the respondents have taken a stand that no evidence has been brought on record to show that pay of Pashupati Singh was fixed in the scale of Rs. 2675 as on 01.01.1986. Besides the above, in the Chart vide Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit I find that pay in Replacement Scale of Rs. 1640-2900 as on 01.01.1986 is Rs. 2540. In the writ petition, in paragraph no. 5 the petitioner has claimed wrong fixation on 01.01.1986 however, during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner tries to contend that the wrong fixation is as on 01.03.1986.There is no evidence brought on record by the petitioner which may sustain the above contention. On the contrary, the relevant extract of the service-book produced along with the counter-affidavit would disclose that his existing pay-scale as on 01.01.1986 was Amit/

Rs. 850-1360, which was replaced by scale of Rs. 1640-2900. Accordingly, his pay in the Replacement Pay-Scale as on 01.01.1986 was Rs. 2480, which would be after stepping up Rs. 2540 and 2600. If that is correct the petitioner's pay has been fixed in a higher Replacement Pay-Scale. Accordingly, anomaly if any in his pay-fixation is to his benefit and not to his disadvantage. The respondents have further stated that benefit of 2[nd] ACP has been granted to him. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that the aforesaid facts have appeared in the counter-affidavit dated 30.11.2016 and these developments are after the impugned order dated 28.03.2014 was passed.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)