Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 27.03.2004, whereby representation pertaining to claim of the petitioner for differences of pay from October, 1985 to October, 2001 along with statutory interest and differences of pay for the period January, 1971 to March 1973 has been rejected and further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release the arrears of revised salary from 22.10.1985 to 31.10.2001 and also make payment of dues on account of difference of pay-scale for the period 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973; as also make payment accrued on account of benefit of time bound promotion w.e.f 22.10.1985 till 26.12.2001 and to quash office order dated 12.02.2015 whereby respondent no. 4 denied to extend such benefit.
(2.) The factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ application is that petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 03.03.1966 in Middle School, Uchri, Mandar, which was later on taken over by Government w.e.f 01.01.1971 and since then the petitioner became a full-fledged government employee and retired on 31.01.2002 from Middle School, Murma, Ranchi. It has further been averred that the State Government vide letter dated 04.06.1973 revised the pay-scale of teachers w.e.f 01.01.1971 and the arrears of pay was directed to be deposited in their respective Provident Fund Account, but, even after retirement of the petitioner said amount has not been paid to the petitioner. It has further been averred that though the petitioner was granted Time Bound Promotion w.e.f 22.10.1985 vide memo dated 26.12.2001 and even respondent no. 4-D.S.E., Ranchi allotted the required fund in favour of petitioner, but, when the same amount was not paid; petitioner preferred representation/details and statement, as required before respondent no. 5 but it did not evoke any response. Hence, the petitioner left with no option but to knock the door of this Court by by filing W.P. (S) No. 349 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2004 with direction to concerned respondent to pass appropriate order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 31.01.2004 before respondent no. 4-D.S.E., Ranchi, who upon consideration of facts available on rcord passed order dated 27.03.2004, which is impugned in this case. It has further been averred that petitioner was granted benefit of 1st time bound promotion vide office order dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f 22.10.1985 but on specific query made by this Court during pendency of this writ application, the respondents by way of filing supplementary counter affidavit asserted that vide office order dated 12.02.2015 office order dated 26.12.2001 granting time bound promotion has been cancelled.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted Matric trained scale vide memo dated 11.08.1973 w.e.f 01.04.1970; I.A. trained scale vide memo dated 17.08.1973 w.e.f 01.09.1973 and B.A. trained scale vide memo dated 20.11.1984 w.e.f 22.10.1975 against vacancy prior to year 1975, as evident from Annexure 25 and 26 to the rejoinder affidavit. It has further been submitted that petitioner remained in the same pay-scale of Graduate trained scale for 10 years as such he was granted 1st time bound promotion vide memo dated 26.12.2001 (after retirement) w.e.f 22.10.1985 that is the date on which the petitioner completed 10 years of his service in B.A trained scale; hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in granting 1st time bound promotion vide memo dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f 22.10.1985. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a circular dated 15.03.1988 of Education Department, Govt. of Bihar in relation to grant of time bound promotion to an employee who continuously worked for 10 years on same post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that government in the financial year 2001-02 allotted fund to the respondent no. 4-D.S.E., Ranchi, who in turn sub-allotted the fund in favour of petitioner for making payment of difference of salary for the period October, 1985 to October, 2001, but, even then also payment was not made. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that B.A. trained scale granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 20.11.1984 as also 1st time bound promotion granted vide memo dated 26.12.2001 has never been cancelled and only when the petitioner approached the respondent no. 4 by submitting representation, his claim was arbitrarily denied.;