Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) IN the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for direction upon the respondents to give the benefit of annual increments for the period of suspension i.e. 1986 -88 and his pension be fixed on the basis of such increments in pay. Sans details, the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: - - The petitioner, in pursuance to a disciplinary proceeding, was inflicted with five punishments, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4664 of 1996, vide Annexure -1 to the writ application. Punishment No. 1 relates to period of suspension, which indicates that "Sri Naresh Mohan Singh for the period of suspension will not be paid any amount other than subsistence allowance. However, the period of suspension will be treated as duty for the purpose of the pension and gratuity." It has been stated in the writ application that the Board has issued a Standing Order dated 2.6.1999, (Annexure -2), relating to grant of increments during suspension period, the relevant portion of the said is quoted hereinbelow: - - "XXX XXX XXX Therefore, after examining all aspects of the matter it has been decided that the respective rules regarding granting increment are modified to the following extent in pursuance of Board's Resolution No. 7427: - - 1. If the disciplinary authority passes a specific order that the increments will not be earned during suspension period, then no increments will be allowed during that period.
(2.) IF the disciplinary authority passes a punishment order but does not specifically order regarding non -earning of increments during suspension period, then the annual increments will be allowed on notional basis, where no stage of E.B. falls during this period. XXX XXX XXX" Taking recourse of the aforesaid Resolution, the petitioner ventilated his grievances by filing various representations before the respondents -authorities. Since the representation of the petitioner did not evoke any gainful response, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigating his grievances. 2. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents stating therein that the Board has issued another Standing Order No. 847 dated 30.9.2003. After examining all aspects of the matter relating to grant of increment to the employee during period of suspension, it has been decided that Board's Standing Order No. 817 dated 2.6.1999 has been withdrawn with effect from the date of its issuance, hence, no increments shall be granted for the period 1986 -1988. Heard Mr. Sidartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents -Board.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Annexure -8 to the reply to counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short "J.S.E.B.") have adopted all the rules and orders berg framed by the Bihar State Electricity Board (in short "B.S.E.B.") tin the year 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Annexure -9, which is an information sought and obtained under R.T.I. Act by the petitioner, wherein it is specifically mentioned that Standing Order No. 847 dated 6.9.2003 has not been adopted by the J.S.E.B. Hence, it is submitted that Standing Order No. 847 dated 6.9.2003 will not be an impediment so far grant of increments during period of suspension in question is concerned.;