- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4762 of 2003*, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner -respondent herein was allowed and it was directed to the respondents -appellants herein to modify the Pension Order No. 3089 dated 11.9.2002 and determine his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by him which he had received after getting the time bound promotion.
(2.) THE appellants -authorities of the Birsa Agricultural University have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the averment that the pension which the petitioner -respondent was drawing prior to the Pension Order No. 3089 dated 11.9.2002 was fit for revision as he had wrongly been drawing pension in the scale of Rs. 3,700 -5,700/ -, on the basis of time bound promotion, which was wrongly granted to him. The learned Single Judge went into a meticulous scrutiny of the facts and noticed that the petitioner -respondent had been granted time bound promotion, which was confirmed by the Evaluation Committee by its Resolution dated 19.3.1990 and had recommended the petitioner/respondent herein for time bound promotion with effect from 1.9.1985 and, therefore, it was ordered that the respondent was entitled to the pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by him and the appellant -University was not correct in issuing an order dated 1119.2002 directing it for redetermination of his pension by revising it on the basis of the pay which he was drawing prior to his time bound promotion.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has endeavored hard to impress upon this Court that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous as the respondent raised an issue of revision of pension after nine years of his retirement. This averment was put to the counsel for the respondent as to why the petitioner -respondent had been accepting the lesser pension and raked up the issue only after nine years of his retirement. Learned coun - selfor the respondent explained the position by submitting that the petitioner -respondent herein was allowed to draw pension on the basis of last pay drawn by him which was fixed on the basis of his time bound promotion. But, the University revised the pension of the respondent in the year 2002 by issuing the Pension Order No. 3089 dated 11.9.2002 as contained in Annexure -10 and that gave him a cause to file a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Thus, it is obvious that there was ho delay on the part of the petitioner -respondent in raising the issue for revision of his pension, rather he had challenged the order of the University by which his pension was decreased and it was ordered that his pension should be redetermined on the basis of the last pay drawn by him, not which he was drawing on the basis of his promotion but the pay which he was drawing prior to the promoted post.;