Patna High Court
Sheo Nandan Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 3 January, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1270 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2978 of 2016
======================================================
Sheo Nandan Prasad Sinha Son of Late Bishwambhar Prasad Sinha, resident
of C/33, A.G. Colony, P.O. Ashiyana Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District-
Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Nagar Ayukt, Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Accountant General, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Bhushan Bharat, Advocate
Mr. Navim Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG 7
For PRDA, Muzaffarpur : Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Alok, Advocate
For Accountant General : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Lalan Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 03-01-2024
The appellant in CWJC No. 2978 of 2016 has sought for
direction to the extent of difference of pay i.e. salary to the
appellant in the pay-scale of Rs. 14,300-400-18,300/- from
01.04.1997
to 31.12.2000 for the period of his deputation in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1270 of 2019 dt.03-01-2024
Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as 'MRDA') along with 12 % interest. His grievance
has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present
LPA.
2. On 18.12.2023, matter was heard at length and the
following order was passed:
"Core issue involved in the present lis is
whether the appellant is entitled to service benefits
like pay scale which are required to be paid from his
parent department, namely, Office of the Accountant
General or is he entitled to whatever the pay in the
borrowing department / Muzaffarpur Municipal
Corporation.
2. The Learned Single Judge has taken
note of exercising option. It is undisputed that
appellant had exercised option for extending pay
scale of the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation.
Once he has exercised option, he cannot go back
against his own option.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the learned Single Judge has not
appreciated the case in respect of P.K. Singh,
employee of Patna Municipal Corporation. In this
regard learned counsel for the appellant has not
apprised this Court whether P.K. Singh was an
employee of the office of this Accountant General and
was he deputed to Patna Municipal Corporation or
not so as to compare the claim of the petitioner.
4. Be that as it may even if the office of the
Accountant General had extended any monetary
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1270 of 2019 dt.03-01-2024
benefits while fixing pay of the P.K. Singh in that
event illegality cannot be perpetuated in the present
case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that there is error committed by the
learned Single Judge in paragraph 8. Reading of
paragraph 8 of the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 26.08.2019, we do not find any error committed
by him.
6. At this stage it is submitted that office of
the Accountant General has filed their counter
affidavit in which they have admitted in paragraph 6
and 9 that the appellant is entitled to pay scale in his
parent department. If it so, appellant is permitted to
withdraw this LPA and pursue the same in the parent
department or in the alternative to pass order on
merit in the present lis. Learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks time to get instruction.
7. Relist this matter tomorrow
(19.12.2023)."
3. Today, learned counsel for the appellant, on
instruction, submitted that matter be decided on merit.
4. It is undisputed that appellant was on deputation in
MRDA during the intervening period from 01.04.1997 to
31.12.2000. Government, as a policy matter, extended pay
revision like sixth pay revision. The appellant had exercised
option of pay-scale in the MRDA pursuant to the policy decision
of the government / authority insofar as exercising the option of a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1270 of 2019 dt.03-01-2024
particular pay-scale irrespective of employee of the MRDA or
who is on deputation to MRDA. Accordingly, the appellant had
exercised option of pay-scale with reference to the policy decision
of the government read with its adoption by the MRDA.
5. The MRDA has proposed for adoption of sixth pay
revision to the State government and the State refused to give
effect to the sixth pay revision to such of those employees and
also who are on deputation and who had exercised option of pay
scale of the State Government / MRDA. In other words, sixth pay
revision has not been extended to such of those staff who were
working in MRDA. The appellant could not apprise this Court in
respect of exercising the option of its withdrawal to have the
benefit of sixth pay revision with reference to the fact that his
parent department is Office of the Accountant General, Patna.
Therefore, once option is exercised to choose a particular pay
scale, there is no provision for its withdrawal that too after lapse
of 16 years, since CWJC No. 2978 of 2016 was presented in the
year 2016 whereas grievance of the appellant is relating to the
period from 01.04.1997 to 31.12.2000.
6. Be that as it may, in paragraph 6 of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the office of the Accountant General in
which they have stated that sixth pay revision has been extended
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1270 of 2019 dt.03-01-2024
to the appellant. The appellant is not satisfied as it was not for the
entire period from 01.04.1997 to 31.12.2000. Taking note of these
facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2019 passed in
CWJC No. 2978 of 2016.
7. Accordingly, present LPA stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
