PATNA, India, Aug. 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 16:

Heard the parties.

2. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already retired on 31.01.2025, hence his entire claim is confined to the payment of 20% of the substantive pay of the post of Binder, including the pay scale of the Binder since 22.08.1989 till the date on which vacancy arose on the post of Assistant Cameraman-cum-Plate maker in, 2005 and further to grant consequential benefit to the post of Assistant Cameramancum- Plate maker with effect from the date of his posting on the said post; as also the payment of difference of higher post of Senior Cameraman-cum- Plate maker with effect from 19.04.2014 when this post became vacant due to death of Navashish Mitra. The petitioner also assailed the order dated 21.10.2019 whereby the petitioner has only been granted Rs.250/- per month for the work done on the said post, from the date of issuance of Memo, which is said to be in the teeth of the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 517 of 1998 and further in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 1999, as also in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in, (2013) 4 SCC 152 and in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal, reported in, 2017 (4) PLJR 46 (SC).

3. Referring to the materials available on record, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the sanctioned post of Binder on 22.08.1989 in the Government Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was directed to discharge the duty of Assistant Cameraman -cumPlatemaker along with other Assistant Cameraman-cumPlatemaker, namely, Navashish Mitra and Sachindranath Chatterjee.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was further deputed for different periods to discharge the duty of Cameraman-cum-Plate maker. To support the aforesaid contention, various annexures have been appended to the writ petition. On account of suspension of Navashish Mitra, later on, the petitioner was directed to discharge the duty in processing department for certain period and later on after the death of Navashish Mitra on 19.04.2014, the petitioner was directed to execute the work of Senior Cameraman-cum-Plate maker, pursuant to the letter no. 709 dated 26.06.2019. Despite the aforesaid facts, when the services of the petitioner was not regularized on the higher post, he approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15344 of 2019 for his absorption and consequential benefit. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 02.08.2019 with a liberty to the petitioner to represent before the Superintendent, Bihar Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna. In consequent to the order of this Court, a letter dated 14.09.2019 came to be issued by the respondent no.5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.3 erroneously passed the final order dated 21.10.2019 and the petitioner has been allowed only Rs.250/- per month in addition to the salary received by him.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order impugned is in the teeth of the settled law and in fact in complete disregard of Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code. To support the aforesaid contention, heavy reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 517 of 1998 and further in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 1999. Reliance has further been placed on the decision rendered in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in, (2013) 4 SCC 152 and in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal, reported in, 2017 (4) PLJR 46 (SC).

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjUwNTAjMjAxOSMxI04=-3--ak1--JysxTB2ew=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.