WRIT PETITION 11297 of 2006 on 30 November 1996

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.), Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Joint Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondents.

Appearance :For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K.B.Verma.

For the State : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, GA-3.

Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, AC to GA-3.

For the Accountant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar.

General

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGHORAL ORDER

Petitioner’s husband was substantively an Assistant Engineer (Civil). He was made to officiate as Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 16.06.1993. He superannuated on 30.11.1996 officiating as such. The petitioner has prayed that her husband should have been paid full emolument for Executive Engineer (Civil) for the said period and all his pensionary benefits also revised accordingly. By the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner’s husband has been rejected on the ground that in terms of the Bihar Service Rule petitioner can at best be granted 20% officiating allowance for officiating at higher post. Petitioner challenges this.

07-09-2012

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, with consent of parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

There is no dispute to the fact that from 16.06.1993 till his superannuation petitioner’s husband was made to officiate as Executive Engineer. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically admitted that petitioner was duly qualified for appointment as an Executive Engineer. The only point of denying him full benefit of the post was that the petitioner’s husband could not be promoted because there was no substantive vacancy. Unfortunately, the counter affidavit also discloses that the Executive Engineer whose promotion was due was officiating as Superintending Engineer and he had not been granted substantive promotion. Thus, the post of Executive Engineer though vacant was not substantively vacant.

Having considered the matter, in my view, these are no ground for denying an employee his rightful wages. The Government cannot be permitted to exploit the situation by asking people to work on a promotional post without substantive promotion and then deprive them of their remuneration of the promotional post. Under the provisions of the Bihar Service Code, it is clearly provided that if a person is asked to work on a higher post involving higher responsibility then he has to be paid the full remuneration in respect of that post.

Here in the present case, the petitioner’s husband was duly qualified for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. He was made to work as Executive Engineer. He retired officiating as such. In such a situation, petitioner’s husband could not have been deprived with full remuneration of Executive Engineer. Payment of mere 20% etc. officiating allowance is a fraudulent exercise of power.

In that view of the matter, I direct the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.), Government of Bihar, Patna to immediately ensure that petitioner’s husband remuneration for the period including his retiral dues are all calculated accordingly and paid within six months from the date of filing of representation along with a copy of this order.

Conclusion

With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Trivedi/-

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)