Patna High Court
The Bihar Pensioner Samaj Jila Shakha vs The State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16104 of 2019
======================================================
1. The Bihar Pensioner Samaj Jila Shakha District- Bhagalpur, through its
Chairman Sri Umesh Chandra Choudhary, Son of Late Govind Prasad
Chaudhary, Resident of Naya Bazar, Kasba Bola Ghat, Bhagalpur, P.S.-
Tatarpur, District- Bhagalpur.
2. Umesh Chandra Choudhary, Son of Late Govind Prasad Chaudhary,
Resident of Naya Bazar, Kasba Bola Ghat, Bhagalpur, P.S.- Tatarpur,
District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
4. The District Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur.
5. The District Accounts Officer, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur.
6. The Accountant General (A and E), Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Pravina Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, AC to AAG-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-08-2024
Heard Mrs. Pravina Kumari, learned Advocate for
the petitioners and Mr. Sushil Kumar singh, learned Advocate
for the State.
2. The petitioner, a registered association of retired
Government servants, has filed the present writ petition through
its President seeking quashing of the part of the Gazette
notification dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure-2) issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16104 of 2019 dt.06-08-2024
2/6
Government of Bihar to the extent whereby it has been stated
that the pension in revised pay scale will be fixed by placing the
pay of the pensioner at the initial Pay band plus Grade pay and
also the Gazette notification dated 08.08.2012 (Annexure-3) by
which the aforesaid decision has reiterated with an addition that
full pension will be payable only to those persons who have
completed 33 years of service, failing which the pension will be
proportionately reduced from 50% of the pension amount, but it
should not be less than the amount on which the retired
employees are drawing. The petitioner is also aggrieved by
Annexure-7 whereby the representation of the petitioner came to
be rejected.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, earlier the
petitioner's association had moved before this Court in C.W.J.C.
No. 21288 of 2013 for redressal of the grievance of their
members that they are not getting the benefit of 6th Pay Revision
Commission, including the grade pay and pay band.
4. Taking note of the fact that during the pendency
of the writ petition, the benefit of 7th Pay Revision Commission
was extended to the teachers, who retired prior to 01.01.2006,
but the benefit of 6th Pay Revision Commission has not been
extended till date, the petitioners were granted liberty to file
Patna High Court CWJC No.16104 of 2019 dt.06-08-2024
3/6
representation before the Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Bihar with regard to non-payment of benefit of
6th PRC, including the grade pay and pay band.
5. In compliance of the aforenoted decision of this
Court, the petitioner's association through its Chairman filed a
representation, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-6. The
prayer of the petitioner's association, however, came to be
turned down in the light of the Office Order contained in Memo
No. 38/37/08 P&PW (A) dated 28.01.2013 as well as the
decision taken by the Finance Department, as contained in
Resolution No. 582 dated 17.07.2018. The aforenoted order is
under challenge.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 and 3.
7. Learned Advocate for the State contended that
the State Government vide its Resolution No. 582 dated
17.07.2018
after considering the grievance of similarly situated
person has resolved that the order contained in Memo No.
38/37/08 P&PW (A) dated 28.01.2013 issued by the Central
Government will not be applicable to pre-2006 State
pensioners/family pensioners. It is also urged that the issue
regarding applicability of notification dated 28.01.2013 had also
Patna High Court CWJC No.16104 of 2019 dt.06-08-2024
arisen before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19352 of 2015, wherein
the Court held that unless there is corresponding notification
issued by the State Government that the notification dated
18.04.2013 issued by the Central Government shall be applied
to the employees of the State Government, it cannot apply
automatically and implemented in favour of the State
Government employee.
8. It is also contended that the identical issue has
come up for consideration in the case of Yogendra Prasad Vs.
The Magadh University & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No.4649 of 2019
along with other analogous cases) reported in 2020(1) PLJR
243 herein this Court in para. 38 and 39 held as follows:
"38. It is to be noted here that the teachers
retiring after 1.1.2006 and further before
23.09.2009 and after 23.09.2009 form one
homogeneous class as they are the teachers
who continued in job after coming into force
the 6th PRC and as such, the teachers who
retired after coming into force the 6th PRC
cannot be treated differently on artificial
classification retirement before 23.09.2009
and after 23.09.2009. Thus, the Court has no
difficulty in upholding the contention of the
petitioners that the teachers retiring after
1.1.2006 and before 23.09.2009 and after
23.09.2009 form one homogeneous class and
there should be no distinction in the matter of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16104 of 2019 dt.06-08-2024
grant of pensionary benefit and pro-rata
reduction on non-completion of 33 years does
not satisfy the twin test of reasonable
classification as such benefit of full pension
on completion of 20 years must accrue to the
teachers recipient of 6th PRC.
39. On the question whether the respondents
can treat the teachers differently, Mr. Lalit
Kishore, learned Advocate General submitted
that those who retired before coming into
force the benefit of 6th PRC would be entitled
to pension in terms of unrevised pay scale as
they were in the basic pay scale of lecturer of
Rs. 8000-13500/-, Senior Lecturer 10,000-
15,200/-, Lecturer Selection Grade 12,000-
18,300/-, Reader 12000-18,300/-, University
Professor 16,400-22400/- but in order to
extend favour the State Government decided
to grant them the benefit of initial pay scale
in the pay band plus AGP for the purpose of
grant of pensionary benefits and thus the
State has taken care that the financial interest
of the teachers who retired in unrevised pay
scale are protected. He submits that there is
no arbitrariness in the decision of the State
Government in fixing the pension on the basis
of basic pay + grade pay. The claim of the
petitioners for grant of a corresponding
fitment in the revised pay band is
unsustainable. The benefit of fitment in
revised pay band + grade pay is only
Patna High Court CWJC No.16104 of 2019 dt.06-08-2024
available to those who were in service on
1.1.2006, the date on which the revised pay
scale was introduced."
9. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned
Advocate for the State submits that the writ petition has no
merit.
10. Considering the rival contention of the parties
and taking note of the facts that identical issue has already been
set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforenoted
case, reported in 2020(1) PLJR 243, this Court does not find
any merit in the writ petition.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.08.2024
Transmission Date NA
