Advocates:
['SACHIN KUMAR', '', 'PRAMOD KUMAR SINHA', 'CHANDRA PRABHA', '', 'SUDARSHAN SHRIVASTAVA', 'GAUTAM RAKESH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W

.P.(

S). No.

2142

of 2017

Dr. Baidyanath Jha

…

…

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Principal Secretary, Health Education and Family W

elfare Department,

Government of Jharkhand, Nepal Hou

se, P.O.

& P.S.

- Doranda, Ranchi

-83402

(Jharkhand)

3. Dy. Secretary, Health Education and Family W

elfare Department, Government

of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.

-Doranda, Ranchi

-83402 (Jharkhand)

4. Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S.

-Doranda, Di

strict

-Ranchi

-

83402 (Jharkhand)

…

.

….

Respondents

------

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

(Through: Video Conferencing)

------

For Petitioner

: M

r.

Depak Kumar Dubey

, Advocate

For

State

: M

r. G

orang Jojaodia, Advocate

For Respondent No.4 : M

r. Sudarshan Shrivastava,

Advocate

--- -------

-----------

08/ 10 .0 8.2021

The p

etitioner has knock

ed the door of this Court with a prayer for

direction

upon

the

respondent No.2 to

first f

ix the

salary of the petitioner in

the

scale of Rs.80/

-13,50/

- and thereafter

to fix salary of the petitioner under

appropriate scale after grant of benefits

of

1^st and 2

nd A.C.P with al the

consequential benefits including arrears of salary

/pension

as wel as re

-fixation of

pension.

The case of the petitioner lies in the narow compas. Petitioner was

appointed

to the Post of M

edical Officer in the State of Bihar

in the year 1972 and

superannuated on 31.07.2003 on the pay scale of 6500/

-10,50/

-. After

retirement

of the petitioner

, vide notification No.256 (2) dated 2.03.2012

his pay was

fixed

in the pay scale of

Rs.8,000

-13,50

0/ - with effect from 01.01.1996 and thereafter

benefit of 2

nd A.C.P was granted to him in the pay of

Rs.12,000

-16,50/

- wit

h

effect from 09.08.199 without extending the benefits of 1

st A.C.P.

, admisible to

the petitioner

. It is specific case of the petitioner that despite grant of aforesaid

benefits

, actual payment has not ben

made

despite representation

s of the

petitioner.

Agrieved

thereto

, the petitioner has

approached this court for redressal

for his grievances.

M

r. Depak Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits

that

petitioner is entitled for benefits of

1^st A.C.P but

without extending the said

2

benefits re

spondents have directly given the benefits of

2^nd A.C.P

with effect from

09.08.199

. It is further submited that the respondents are not giving the actual

benefits to the petitioner as per notification dated 12.03.2012 and though the pay

scale of the peti

tioner has ben upgraded but stil the petitioner is geting pension

in the unrevised pay scale

. Learned counsel further argues that respondents should

first

consider

for extending the benefit of

1^st A.C.P

. and thereafter

revise

the

salary/

pension

of the p

etitioner in the

revised

pay

scale which acrues after

grant

of benefits of 1

st and 2

nd A.C.P.

Per contra, counter affidavit has ben filed. Learned counsel for the

State justifying the impugned order submits that already petitioner has retired in

the y

ear 2003 and amount of A.C.P has ben paid and fixation has also ben done.

There is no ilegality in the fixation of pension which has ben given to the

petitioner. It is only after lapse of 14 years this writ petition has ben prefered for

consideration

of

his case for grant of benefits of 1

st A.C.P.,

admisible to the

petitioner.

M

r. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel apearing on behalf of

Accountant General refers to paragraph

-4 of the counter affidavit

which read as

folows

:-

e claim related to the office of the answering respondent in

the present writ aplication is concern, it is to state and submit that the

petitioner is seeking for pay scale of Rs.80

-1350/

-