Rekha Manharlal Doshit, C.J.@mdashThis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Pramod Kumar Srivastava, a retired judicial Officer of the Bihar State. The petitioner joined the service of the State Government in its Judicial Branch on 24th July, 1975. In course of time, he was promoted as Sub-Judge (Civil Judge (Senior Division)) and to the Superior Judicial Service as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 3rd January, 1996 in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5000. In 2007, he was appointed as Principal Judge, Family Court and in 2009 he retired as such. While serving as Sub-Judge, the petitioner was extended the benefit of promotion to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Level Need Based Posts (Selection Grade Posts). On the 3rd Level Need Based Post he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-5700. On revision of pay from 1st January, 1996, he was placed in the scale of Rs. 16750-20500, the scale of pay sanctioned for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge corresponding to the unrevised scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5000.
2. It is the claim of the petitioner that on revision of pay on 1st January, 1996, he should have been placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 18750-22850 corresponding to the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-5700. He has also prayed for promotion to the Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge.
3. The petition is contested by the Patna High Court and by the State Government.
4. We have noticed that the scale of pay sanctioned for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge prior to 1st January, 1996 was Rs. 3700-5000. The corresponding revised scale of pay was Rs. 16750-20500 i.e. the scale of pay allowed to the petitioner from 1st January, 1996. We do not suppose that the petitioner can have any legitimate grievance in respect of pay fixation as on 1st January, 1996. The scale of pay of Rs. 18750-Rs. 22850 demanded by the petitioner was the scale of pay sanctioned for the post of District and Sessions Judge which obviously could not have been offered to the petitioner. In any view of the matter, challenge to the pay fixation as on 1st January, 1996 in the present petition filed in 2011 is vitiated by the principles of delay, latches and acquiescence.
5. The next claim of the petitioner is the benefit of Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge. The Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale for the cadre of District and Sessions Judge has been sanctioned by the State of Bihar under its Resolution dated 9th February, 2005. On perusal of the said Resolution and the counter-affidavit made by the Patna High Court, it is apparent that until the petitioner entered the cadre of District and Sessions Judge as a Presiding Officer of the Family Court, he was not entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade or Super Time Scale. The case of the petitioner for grant of Selection Grade was considered by the High Court, however, the petitioner was not found fit for such higher grade. The question of extension of Super Time Scale, therefore, shall not arise.
6. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the petitioner did not qualify for Selection Grade or Super Time Scale. The claim for such higher pay-scale is misconceived and requires to be rejected. Petition is devoid of any merit Petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their own cost.
