Shailandra Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5115 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9626 of 2020
     ======================================================

Shailandra Kumar Mishra Son of Satyanarayan Mishra Resident of Naya Tola Bihari, P.S. and District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary Building Construction Department Bihar, Patna.

3. The Executive Engineer Building Construction Department, Building Division, Munger.

4. The Treasury Officer Jamui.

5. The Accountant General Bihar, Patna.

6. The Bank Manager State Bank of India, Jamui.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to AAG-9.

For S.B.I. : Mr. Satya Vrat, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-10-2023 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Jitendra Kumar,

learned AC to AAG-9 for the State and Mr. Satya Vrat, learned

counsel for the State Bank of India.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in Rural

Engineering Department, Chapra, Circle Muzaffarpur on

05.05.1980. He was transferred from Muzaffarpur to Bhagalpur

and then to Munger. The State Government took a policy

decision to merge Rural Engineering Department, Circle

Muzaffarpur with Building Construction Department. The

merger led to putting the post of peon/night guard and that of Patna High Court CWJC No.9626 of 2020 dt.06-10-2023

the Treasure guard in one cadre of Class-IV employee.

Petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2016. Pension

of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 6655/- (Annexure-1) vide

P.P.O. dated 22.03.2018.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the action

of respondent-authority, particularly, the sanctioning authority

who has discriminated him from one similarly situated Class-IV

employee Pitambar Singh who had also retired on the same date

as that of the petitioner i.e. 31.12.2016 and in his case pension

has been fixed at Rs.7755/- which would be evident from

Annexure-2, the P.P.O. dated 08.05.2017 issued in favour of the

said employee Pitambar Singh. Being aggrieved with the

discrimination which has been shown to the petitioner,

petitioner had filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel

submits that the petitioner is also entitled for benefit of 7th Pay

Revision and his pension should also be fixed at Rs.18573/- as

is being paid to said Pitambar Singh. The petitioner has already

filed his representation claiming parity with Pitambar Singh on

06.01.2020 before the Executive Engineer, Building

Construction Department, Munger Division.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

submits that the claim of the petitioner being belated one cannot

be entertained and to that effect specific statement has been Patna High Court CWJC No.9626 of 2020 dt.06-10-2023

made in Para-9 of the counter affidavit. He further submits that

that pay fixation of the petitioner was done in the year 2017 and

at the time of pay fixation, petitioner has not raised any

objection, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated on equal

terms with his counter part one Pitambar Singh. The claim of

the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

5. Having regard to the facts of the case as well as

pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, it

appears that the petitioner had rendered service for nearly 36

years 7 months and 27 days as it would appear from Annexure-

A to the counter affidavit. The date of birth of the petitioner has

not been disputed that it is 01.01.1957. As per Rules 58 and 59

read with Rule 60 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, the

petitioner has completed pensionable service and he is entitled

for pension and also in terms of Appendix VI, Part-II of the

Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 wherein in terms of Clause 18, the

minimum pensionable service with respect to the permanent

employee of the State Government is 10 years. Petitioner has

also raised his claim that he is entitled for pension on the same

pay scale on which his counter part namely Pitambar Singh who

had also retired from the post of Class-IV employee is receiving.

Pension of Pitambar Singh has been fixed on the basis of higher

pay scale and he has also been given benefit of 7 th pay revision

and thereafter his pension has been fixed at Rs.18573/- and later Patna High Court CWJC No.9626 of 2020 dt.06-10-2023

revised to Rs.42,200/-. Petitioner is also entitled for the said pay

scale which after revision comes to Rs.42,200/-. The revised

pension was issued to the said retired employee Pitambar Singh

as it would appear from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit.

The petitioner is also entitled for equal treatment and the State

cannot discriminate the petitioner who is a Class-IV employee

from his entitlement to receive pension after giving benefit of

pay revision from time to time to what has been given and fixed

to one employee Pitambar Singh at the revised rate of

Rs.42,200/-.

6. The concerned respondent is accordingly

directed to make payment of difference of pension for the period

during which the petitioner was paid pension at the reduced rate.

7. The above exercise is directed to be completed

within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of

this order.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

mantreshwar/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          07.10.2023
Transmission Date       N.A.