STATE OF BIHAR Vs. JITAN SAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Bihar and its officers arises from a writ petition, CWJC No. 8460/96, which the sole respondent preferred for quashing the order of the Superintending Engineer, Design Circle, Road Construction Department, dated 26.6.1996, rejecting his claim for second time-bound promotion. The learned Single Judge before whom the case came up for hearing took a view, that though the respondent had been allowed regular promotions as Draftsman Grade II and Draftsman Grade I and thereby he was entitled to salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-, the same was not given. It was by virtue of the second time bound promotion that he started getting salary in that scale which has since been cancelled and decision has been taken to recover the excess amount fixing salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. In the opinion of the learned Judge, if the respondent was not entitled to the scale admissible to the post of Draftsmen Grade I, he was certainly entitled to time bound promotion. The learned Judge accordingly disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to revise the salary of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1400- 2600/- either treating him to be Draftsmen Grade I or by way of second time bound promotion.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Tracer on 19.7.1962. In course of time he was granted regular promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade II on 10.5.1976 and another regular promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade I on 16.1.1988/28.9.1991 with effect from 10.5.1978. The respondent claimed second time bound promotion on completion of 25 years of service with effect from 19.7.1987 in accordance with the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee. In fact on 11.5.1990 he was allowed the benefit of second time bound promotion with effect from 19.7.1987 which was later cancelled on 5.6.1995. The respondent challenge the said order before this Court in CWJC No. 4490/95. On 21.12.1995 the impugned order was quashed on the ground that the decision had been taken without giving opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondent and fresh order was passed reiterating the earlier decision on 26.6.1996. IT is this order for quashing of which the respondent filed the writ petition which has given rise to the present appeal.

(3.) PERUSAL of the Government order contained in letter of the Finance Department dated 20.11.1991 addressed to the Accountant General, produced by the respondent himself leaves no room for doubt that scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- is the revised replacement scale of the erstwhile scale of Rs. 730-1080/- for the post of Draftsman Grade I with effect from 1.1.1986. The said decision appears to have been taken to resolve the anomaly arising out of different pay scales admissible to the Draftsman of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department on the one hand the different Works Department on the other in the light of the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 67/90. It is well settled that in the matter of pay fixation the High Court cannot direct the Government to allow the pay which is not admissible to the post, nor it can meddle with the pay revision made by the Government. It can make only a limited enquiry as to what scale of pay has been fixed for the post. In view of the above said Government order dated 20.11.1991 brought on record by the respondent himself, he cannot be held entitled to the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-.