Arjun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9782 of 2018 ====================================================== Arjun Kumar S/o Sri Rajendra Kumar R/o, village Gautam Nagar, WardNo.11 South West of Income Tax Office. P.O.P.S.District-Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3.Principal Secretary, Human Resources, Bihar, Patna. 4.Accountant General, Bihar Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 5.Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 6.Collector, Saharsa. 7.Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa. 8.District Accounts Officer, Saharsa. 9.District Programme Officer Estb. Educaton, Saharsa. 11-07-2019 ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Mallika Mazumdar, AdvocateFor the Respondent/s: Mr. Madhukar Mishra, A.C. to S.C. 16For the A.G. Bihar: Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAYORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as learnedcounsel appearing for the Accountant General, Bihar. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved bythe fixation made by the Accountant General vide order dated03.11.2018. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of theAccountant General in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, hasstated as follows: “10. That any reply of the departmenthas not been received by the answering respondentyet. Further, the District Programme Officer (Estd.)Saharsa has been requested vide letter No. -pen-12-425-426 dated 18.06.2018 under the intimation ofpetitioner to review the case in light of this writpetition and send the service book along with propersanction order, if pensionary benefits are required tobe revised by answering respondent.” Today counter affidavit on behalf of the DistrictProgramme Officer has been filed. The counter affidavit of theDistrict Programme Officer is acknowledgement of arbitrarinesson the part of the Accountant General in the matter of fixation ofthe entitlement of the petitioner. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of thecounter affidavit filed today is quoted hereinunder: “7. That while observation of payFixation done by DDO-cum-Head Master, AadarshAwasiya Middle School, Shiksha Sangh, Saharsaand countersigned by the then D.P.O. (Estt.),Saharsa, the respondetn no. 4 (A.G. Bihar, Patna)observed that a benefit of a sum of Rs. 175/- underfundamental rule 22(1) A(1) has been given to thepetitioner which is not applicable as per annexure-4and the A.G. Bihar, Patna deducting Rs. 175/- fromfixed pay contained in Annexure 2 to this writpetition. 8. That it is a fact that in same the caseof Pratap Narayan Singh, the A.G. admitted andaccepted the benefit of Rs. 175/- under Fundamentalrule 22 (1) A(1) and in the case of the petitioner it isrefused. Thus it is an act of arbitrariness.” From the counter affidavit of the District Programme uma/- U Officer it is admitted that the case of the petitioner is similar tothat of the Pratap Narayan Singh. Accountant General hadadmitted the benefit to the other under fundamental Rule of 22(1)(A)(1), whereas in the case of the petitioner, the same benefitwas refused. Thus, it is an act of arbitrariness. Once it isadmitted by the respondent District Programme Officer, it shallbe obligation of the Account General to make necessarycorrection and take steps for revised pension of the petitioneraccordingly. In view of the stand taken by the District ProgrammeOfficer indicated hereinabove the letter dated 31.01.2018 cannotsustain. It is, accordingly, quashed. From the counter affidavit of the District Programme uma/- U Officer it is admitted that the case of the petitioner is similar tothat of the Pratap Narayan Singh. Accountant General hadadmitted the benefit to the other under fundamental Rule of 22(1)(A)(1), whereas in the case of the petitioner, the same benefitwas refused. Thus, it is an act of arbitrariness. Once it isadmitted by the respondent District Programme Officer, it shallbe obligation of the Account General to make necessarycorrection and take steps for revised pension of the petitioneraccordingly. In view of the stand taken by the District ProgrammeOfficer indicated hereinabove the letter dated 31.01.2018 cannotsustain. It is, accordingly, quashed. The present writ petition is disposed of with adirection to the respondents to grant benefit of Rule 22 (1)(A)(1)of Fundamental Rule and issue appropriate order of revisedpension extending the benefit of the fundamental rules to thepetitioner. Necessary corrective decision may be taken by theAccountant General within a maximum period of 30 days fromthe date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the present writ application standsallowed and disposed of. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)