- (1.) BY Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had approached this Court in the year 1999, directing the respondents to promote him on the post of Assistant Controller, Weight and Measures w.e.f. 2nd May, 1986 i.e. the date, on which he took charge on officiating basis of the said post vide Annexure1. He had also prayed for directing the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Controller, Weight and Measures when he was subsequently given the charge of the said post vide Annexure6 dated 9th February, 1994, which he discharged till his retirement. He had also made a claim for grant of salary to the post of Assistant Controller from 2nd May, 1986 to 9th February, 1994 and thereafter for the post of Deputy Controller, Weight and Measures till his retirement i.e. 30th November, 1997. He had also prayed for fixing his post retirement benefit on the last pay drawn by him in the scale of promotional post of Deputy Controller.
(2.) THE petitioner, however, confines himself to the prayer nos. 1(iii) and (iv), which relate to payment of salary of petitioner for the post of Assistant Controller from 2nd May, 1986 to 9th February, 1994 and thereafter till his retirement for the post of Deputy Controller and also for consequent post retirement benefits on such scale. The factual basis for making such a claim, according to the petitioner, is that after having been appointed as Inspector in the Department of Agriculture on 30th April 1964, he was posted as Assistant Controller on 2nd May, 1986 vide Annexure1 which was issued in respect of other persons as well, his name figures at serial no. 33. The petitioner thereafter submits that he was granted first time bound promotion, junior selection grade and senior selection grade. However, again vide Annexure6 dated 9th February, 1994, he was given additional charge of Assistant Director of AgriculturecumDeputy Controller, Weight and Measures, Dumka Division. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of similarly situated employee, Muneshwar Razak rendered by Patna High Court in CWJC. No. 11041 of 1997 vide judgment dated 8th December, 1998 (Annexure7) to support his case. It appears from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Muneshwar Razak was also granted charge of the post of Assistant Controller, Weights and Measures and his name figures at serial no. 32 in the notification dated 2nd May, 1986 (Annexure1) while that of the petitioner occurs at serial no. 33. It further appears from perusal of the said judgment that the said person, Muneshwar Razak was also given additional charge of the post of Assistant Director, AgriculturecumDeputy Controller, Weights & Measures like the present petitioner, apart from the holding the charge of the post of Assistant Controller. In similar circumstances, the judgment was rendered in the case of Muneshwar Razak by the Patna High Court after taking into account the judgment in the case SecretarycumChief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma and others reported in (1998) 5 S.C.C 87, laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing in the following terms. "Para 7 : This writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner's salary in the pay scale of Assistant Controller, Weights and Measures with effect from the date he joined that office on the basis of the notification dated 2.5.1986 (Annexure 1). Further , from the date the petitioner assumed the additional charge of the office of Assistant Director Agriculture, he would also be entitled to additional allowance in terms of rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code. The additional allowance will be paid to the petitioner till the date he discharged the additional duties of the post of Assistant Director, Agriculture. The differential pay must be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."
(3.) THE factual foundation in the present case is exactly similar to that of Muneshwar Razak, which the counsel for the RespondentsState of Jharkhand as well as Bihar have not been able to distinguish. In the facts and circumstances, which appear in the present case, therefore the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief as granted to Muneshwar Razak by the Patna High Court as per the judgment contained at Annexure7.;