High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Sadhu Rai vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 18 January, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Sadhu Rai vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 18 January, 2011
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CWJC No.15113 of 2004
                   SADHU RAI, son of late Prithvi Rai, resident of Mohalla - Club
                   Road, Mandir Lane, Chitra Gupta Colony, Ara, P.S. Nawada, District
                   - Bhojpur at Ara, the retired Emergency Divisional Accountant,
                   Public Health and Engineering Department, Sasaram Division,
                   Sasaram.

                                                   Versus
                   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                   2. The Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department,
                      Government of Bihar, Patna.
                   3. The Joint Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department,
                      Government of Bihar, Patna.
                   4. The Finance Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
                   5. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
                      Road Circle, Hazaribagh.
                   6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Sasaram.
                   7. The Account General, Bihar, Patna.
                   8. The Accounts Officer (A & E), Office of the Accountant General,
                      Bihar, Patna.
                                                -----------

For the petitioner: Mr. S B K Manglam.

For the Accountant General: Mr. L P K Rajgrihar.
For the State : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Akela, AC to GA-5.

_____

07. 18-01-2011 Annexure-2 dated 8.7.1993 issued from the office of the

Principal Accountant General (A & E)-I, Bihar is being challenged

in the present writ application, filed by the petitioner in December,

2004. Petitioner superannuated from the post of Emergency

Divisional Accountant under the office of the Accountant General

on 31.5.1993. Annexure-2 therefore came to be issued by

respondent No.8 to facilitate fixation of his pension and other retiral

dues in terms of his entitlement.

2. There are other prayers as well made in the writ

application wherein petitioner wants himself to be treated as State

Government employee and be given the benefit of the post which he

would have held as such irrespective of the fact that he was deputed
2

as an Emergency Divisional Accountant and worked on that post

till his superannuation under the office of the Accountant General,

Bihar.

3. Before getting into facts and so-called law which

has been urged at the bar, the Court must record its reservation on

the prayer made by the petitioner at the very outset in the

background that the impugned annexure contained in Annexure-2

was issued as far back as in 1993 and no serious challenge was ever

thrown to that communication till the filing of the present writ

application in the year 2004, more so when the petitioner had retired

on 31.5.1993 from service. Secondly the so-called bogey being

raised by the petitioner that he never opted for being deputed as an

Emergency Divisional Accountant has to be taken with a pinch of

salt because such an exercise was carried out way back in the year

1979 and petitioner worked under the office of the Accountant

General till he superannuated in 1993. No person can be compelled

to work in an organization for more than 20 years without his

willingness, consent and acceptance of the position as to this status

and post on which he was working. In the opinion of this Court, the

writ application therefore has to be viewed whether it is a bonafide

claim having been raised by the petitioner or motivated by other

extraneous consideration.

4. The brief facts are that the petitioner entered service

under the Public Works Department (PWD) as a Junior Accounts

Clerk in the year 1957. He got promotion as a Senior Accounts
3

Clerk and his services were confirmed with effect from 1.3.1969.

5. There was dearth of officers at the level of

Divisional Accountant in the office of Accountant General, Bihar.

Letters thereof were circulated to all the departments of the State

Government to recommend names of senior account clerks having

more than 5 years experience and good service record, to fill up the

vacancies of Emergency Divisional Accountants. Name of the

petitioner was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General

and he joined the office of Accountant General as Emergency

Divisional Accountant in the year 1979, a fact not in dispute.

Thereafter he worked in that capacity and retired from the said post.

Post retirement, it seems, petitioner was not happy with the kind of

benefits which he could have drawn or the pension which he was

entitled to by virtue of being Emergency Divisional Accountant. He

started raising a bogey that since he never opted for the post of

Emergency Divisional Accountant, his so-called deputation or

deployment under the Accountant General should be annulled and

he should be continued to be treated as a employee of the State

Government. If it is done, then his pension etc. should be fixed on

the basis of entitlement of a State Government employee instead of

an employee of the Accountant General.

6. The Court directed the Accountant General to file

counter affidavit for proper appreciation of the issue as well as

adjudication whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs which he

is seeking in the background under which a dispute was sought to be
4

raised.

7. The stand of the respondent Accountant General is

that it is too late in the day to state that the petitioner was forced out

of service of the State Government and that he was compelled to

serve the office of the Accountant General for more than two

decades before his superannuation. Fact is that many a persons

working under the various departments of the State Government had

opted to work as Emergency Divisional Accountant under the

Accountant General as the pay and perks at the relevant time was

more attractive. The fact that the petitioner continued on the post

till the time of his superannuation is a circumstance to show that

there was no ifs and buts on his deployment and functioning as such

on the post in question. Petitioner faced problems in matter of

confirmation or promotion under the respondent Accountant

General because he never passed the Divisional Accountant Grade

Examination which was mandatory for his absorption under the

cadre of Divisional Accountant and promotions thereafter. Since the

petitioner could not achieve such benefits and the State

Government Employees over the years had ended up with better

pay-scale and retiral benefits, the bogey is now being raised by the

petitioner that he should be treated as a State Government

employee and be given the presumptive pay of the State

Government by presuming his continuance as an employee of the

State despite his deployment under the respondent Accountant

General.

5

8. The counter affidavit further rebuts most of the

positions which have been taken in the writ application. It also

indicates the various pay-scales to which petitioner was entitled

from time to time and the settlement of the retiral dues of the

petitioner and other benefits as an employee of the Accountant

General. All this adds up to only one position that claim of the

petitioner lacks bonafide and has no legal basis. The reason for the

petitioner to embark on a litigation of the kind is available from the

pleadings and the assertions made in the counter affidavit on behalf

of the respondents No.7 and 8.

9. Obviously the present writ application has been

filed with oblique motive to derive uncalled for benefit and re-open

an issue which was settled years ago by the acceptance of the

petitioner to join the office of the respondent Accountant General

and having superannuated in the year 1993. In fact, any indulgence

shown to the petitioner would open a flood gate of litigations and

will encourage many similarly situated persons to demand similar

kind of relief, which is not otherwise available to them after having

worked in the capacity as Emergency Divisional Accountant, for

more than two decades on the request and acceptance of the

employees who were deployed or deputed under the Accountant

General and came to be permanently engaged and utilized, till they

superannuated.

10. The Court therefore will not go by the bald

assertions that all these actions were taken against the petitioner
6

without his consent or his willingness to join the post of

Emergency Divisional Accountant under the respondent

Accountant General.

11. Such a writ application does not deserve any

indulgence in absence of any factual or legal infirmity having

emerged in the above stated background.

12. The writ application is dismissed as being devoid

of merit.

rkp                               ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)