Patna High Court
Sachidanand Sharma vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 December, 2023
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2472 of 2018
======================================================
Sachidanand Sharma Son of late Mohan Sharma, Resident of Village-
Milanpalli Ward No. 2, P.S.- Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
3. Director, Directorate of Integral Child Development Services, ICDS, Indira
Bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Boring Canal Road, Patna.
4. District Magistrate, Kishanganj.
5. District Programme Officer, Kishanganj.
6. Child Development Project Officer, Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sunil Kumar Mandal -SC3
Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-12-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner primarily to set aside letter No.1089 dated 23.10.2017
issued by respondent No.5, namely, the District Programme
Officer, Kishanganj (Annexure - P/1 to the writ petition); order
contained in Letter No. 111 dated 08.01.2018 issued under the
signature of respondent No.3, namely, the Director, Directorate
of Integral Child Development Services (ICDS) (Annexure -P/2
Patna High Court CWJC No.2472 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023
2/7
to the writ petition); order communicated vide Memo No. 355
dated 28.03.2018 issued by the District Magistrate, Kishanganj
and with further prayer to restrain the respondent for making
any recovery from the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was working as a regular appointed clerk-cum-typist
under the Directorate of Integrated Child Development Services
of the Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. The
petitioner was initially appointed to a Class-III post in the
Directorate of Adult Education under the Human Resources
Development Department between the years 1979-1987. The
petitioner and other similarly situated persons were terminated
from the services by a common order dated 28.02.1993 issued
by the Director, Mass Education but, subsequently, by virtue of
the order passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 4716 of
1993 and also vide order passed in CWJC No. 5036 of 1992.
Subsequently, in view of the order dated 01.09.1993, passed in
CWJC No. 4716 of 1993, the services of the petitioner and other
similarly situated persons were absorbed in the Directorate of
Adult Education by virtue of Annexure-P5 and the condition for
appointment was also mentioned therein. The name of the
petitioner was figured in the said Annexure at Sl. No.45. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2472 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023
3/7
condition for appointment stipulated in the said annexure is as
follows:-
"d) ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ( izkFkfed ,oa o;Ld f"k{kk ) ds
ladYi la[;k 582 fnukad 20.05.2005 ds vkyksd esa bu NVuhaxzLr
deZpkfj;ksa dk lek;kstu ubZ fu;qfDr le>h tk;sxhA NVuhxzLr gksus ds iwoZ dh
lsok ds vk/kkj ij mUgsa ojh;rk dk ykHk vuqekU; ugha gksxk ijUrq NVuhxzLr
gksus ds iwoZ dh lsok dh x.kuk isa"ku ds iz;kstukFkZ dh tk;sxhA"
[k ) .........
Xk ) .........
?k ) .........
³ ) ..........
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner through his association has filed another writ
CWJC No. 13009 of 2001 and on the basis of the decision
rendered in the said writ petition, the respondent State has
issued one resolution published vide Memo No.582 dated
20.05.2005
. According to which, the decision to absorb the
Project Officers, Clerk-cum-Accountant, Clerk-cum-Typist and
Steno-Typist as well as Drivers and Orderly Peons were taken.
Counsel submits that the absorption of the petitioner was made
on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in the Directorate of ICDS
under the Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2472 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023
Counsel further submits that there were two separate pay scales
for both the cadres prescribed. One for the Lower Division
Clerk other for the Upper Division Clerk. The pay scale for a
Lower Division Clerk was Rs. 3050-4590/- and for an Upper
Division Clerk the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. Counsel further
submits that when Modified Assured Career Progression Rules,
2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACP') was introduced
and according to Rule 22 of the MACP, the petitioner also
became entitled to the same and as such he came in the pay-
scale of Rs.5000-8000/- as decided by the organization vide
Annexure-P-11/A which is said to be applicable w.e.f
09.08.1999.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that upon receiving Letter No. 1089 dated 23.10.2017, the
petitioner was surprised to know that the District Programme
Officer, Kishanganj vide the said letter has directed to recover
the excess amount paid to the petitioner towards his salary on
grant of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP. The petitioner became
further surprised on receipt of Letter No. 111 dated 08.01.2018
by which it has been held that the persons situated as like that of
the petitioner are entitled to a pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/-
instead of a pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000/-. He further submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.2472 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023
that the said Annexures - P/1 and Annexure P/2 have been
issued in gross violation of Letter No. 1720 dated 19.02.2014 by
the Finance Department (Annexure - P10) by which merger of
two pay-scales of Rs.4500-7000/- and pay-scale of Rs.5000-
8000/- is permissible into one scale as PB-11 (9300-34,800/-
with Grade Pay 4200 admissible. Learned counsel further
submits that the benefit of the said merger is permissible
financially w.e.f. 01.01.2009 particularly to those persons who
are entitled for grant of 2nd ACP.
6. Learned counsel for the State has filed its counter
affidavit and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any
benefit due to the reasons that Annexure -P2 to the writ petition
which is under challenge as well as Annexure P-10 to the writ
petition, on the basis of which the petitioner wants relief in his
favour, shall not help the petitioner in any manner as the Letter
No. 111 dated 08.01.2018 has been issued on the basis of letters
issued by the Finance Department in which pay-scale for Clerk
cadre after the grant of 1st ACP has been fixed as Rs.4500-
7000/- but the fixation of pay of the petitioner has wrongly been
made vide Annexure P-11A dated 18.05.2017. He further
submits that Annexure -P10 is very much clear that there were
two different pay scales permissible for the Clerk cadre i.e.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2472 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023
Rs.4500-7000 and Rs.5000-8000/- but the merger of those two
pay scales has been made only w.e.f. 01.01.2006 onwards and,
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief which he has
prayed in the present writ petition.
7. Upon perusal of the documents and on the basis of
the submission made by the parties, there are two provisions
that are very much relevant to the petitioner's case. The first is
the condition for appointment and the second is Rule 22 of the
MACP Rules, 2010 by virtue of which it is clear that the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit of ACP/MACP. So far as
Annexure-P10 is concerned, it is admitted that there were two
different pay scales prior to 01.01.2006, and in the opinion of
the Court, Annexure P-10 shall not help the petitioner in any
manner. Annexure-P2, issued by the Director, ICDS, is
completely lawful and in accordance with law. So far as the
question of recovery of the excess amount from the petitioner is
concerned, there are relevant dates that are important. Benefit
has been granted to the petitioner vide Annexure P-11 dated
18.05.2017 w.e.f. 09.08.1999 but just three months after the
issuance of the said letter dated 23.07.2017, the order for
recovery has been made and further clarification has been made
vide Letter No. 111 dated 08.01.2018 by the Director, ICDS.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2472 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023
8. In this background, this Court is of the view that the
wrong calculation made, if any, has been immediately rectified
by the Department at the earliest i.e. within five months. Hence,
there is no need for any interference in the orders impugned.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
9. The order of stay granted vide order dated
23.02.2018 is hereby vacated.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23/12/2023
Transmission Date NA
