http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DEVAKI NANDAN PRASAD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1983

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1184            1983 SCR  (2) 921  1983 SCC  (4)  20        1983 SCALE  (1)463

ACT:      Writs issued  by Court  must be complied with promptly- Persons responsible  for non-compliance  liable for contempt action-Exemplary costs awarded for harassment.

HEADNOTE:      In Deokinandan  Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1971] Supp. S.C.R.  634 decided on May 4,1971 the Court had, after coming to  the conclusion  that the  petitioner herein was a member of  the Bihar  Education Service  entitled to pension under r.  5 of  the Bihar  Pension Rules,  issued a  writ of mandamus directing  the State  Government  to  consider  the claim of  the petitioner for payment of pension according to law. Inspite  of the  petitioner having approached the Chief Minister for implementation of the mandamus it was not until 1974 that  the concerned file reached the Chief Minister and orders were  passed by  him that  the petitioner  should  be deemed to  belong to  Class I  post of  Selection Grade from January 1, 1952 and that his claims should be settled within a month.  Three years  after this  direction  of  the  Chief Minister the petitioner received intimation that his pension had been  computed on  the basis  that he  had retired  from Class III  service. Further representations having failed to evoke any response from the State Government, the petitioner approached the Court once again.      Allowing the petition ^      HELD: The  respondent State  and all  its officers  are bound to  compute pension  of the petitioner not only on the footing that  he is  a member of the Bihar Education Service but also  on the  footing he was promoted to Class II by the date mentioned  in the  earlier judgment and from January 1, 1952 to  Class I  as rightly  held by  the  Chief  Minister. Officers dealing  with the  pension case  of the  petitioner appear to  have scant regard for the decision of tho Supreme Court in  that both  the promotion  to Class  II and further promotion to  Class I  from deemed  dates were  ignored  and pension was  computed  on  the  basis  that  the  petitioner retired  from   Class  III  service.  The  State  cannot  be permitted to play ducks and drakes with a solemn decision of this  Court.   The  State   and  the   subordinate  officers responsible for computation of pension of the petitioner are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

directed to  complete this  computation by July 31, 1983 and by that  date pension  payment order  correct and consistent with the  direction herein  given shall  be  issued  without fail. The  State is  also directed  to pay  the  arrears  of pension on  the aforesaid computation within the same period with interest  at 6  per Cent  from January 10, 1967. As the officers of  the State have harassed the petitioner which is intentional,  deliberate   and  motivated,  exemplary  costs quantified at  Rs. 25,000  shall be  paid. to the petitioner before July 922 31,1983. The  slightest failure  or deviation  from the time schedule  in   carrying  A   out  this   mandamus  will   be unquestionably visited with contempt action.                              [924 H: 925 A: 925 C-H: 926 A:]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3053 of 1980.      Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.      Dr. L.M.  Singhvi, S.K  Sinha, S.K  Verma, A.M. Singhvi and Laxmi Kant Pandey for the Appellant.      D. Goburdhan for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J. A pensioner since 16 years is knocking at the doors of the court of justice and the executive in search of his hard  earned pension  and is being rebuffed by those who would meet the same fate by the passage of time and yet with his meagre  resources, he has been dragged to the apex court for the  second time  after a lapse of 12 years during which abominably long  period the  mandamus of this Court has been treated  as  a  scrap  of  paper.  What  a  pity,  and  what helplessness ?      The facts  relevant to  the disposal  or this  petition under Art.  32 of the Constitution are set out in details in Deokinandan  Prasad   v.  State  of  Bihar  &  Ors  (1)  and therefore, need  not be  recapitulated here.  A Constitution Bench presided  over by  the then  Chief Justice  Mr.  Sikri issued a  mandamus in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner which reads as under:           "The order dated August 5, 1966 declaring under r.      76 of  the Service  Code that the petitioner has ceased      to be in government employ is set aside and quashed.      The order  dated June  12 1968 stating that under r. 46      of the Pension Rules, the Department is unable to grant      the petitioner  pension is  also set aside and quashed.      As the  petitioner himself  claims  that  he  has  been      retired from  service  on  superannuation,  a  writ  of      mandamus will  be issued  to the  respondents directing      them to  consider  the  claim  of  the  petitioner  for      payment of pension according to law." 923 The opinion  of the  Court was  rendered on  May 4, 1971 and since then petitioner is being pushed from pillar to post by various  departments   of  the  State  of  Bihar  ultimately compelling him to knock at the door of this Court.      It may  be mentioned  in passing  that  the  petitioner joined service  on September  1, 1928  and admittedly he has retired  on  superannuation  on  January  10,  1967.  He  is entitled to pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The dispute is  whether the  petitioner is a member of the Bihar Education Service  and  what  ought  to  be  the  method  of computation of  his pension ? on the first point, the matter is no  more res  integra because the Constitution Bench held

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

that a reference to r. S of the Pension Rules shows that the officers mentioned  therein are  entitled to pension. It was further  held   that  there   is  no  controversy  that  the petitioner is  an officer in the Education Department of the Bihar Education  Service, and  this department  is shown  at item  No.  3  of  the  Schedule  to  r.  S.  Therefore,  the controversy is  concluded by  decision between  the  parties that the  petitioner is  a member of Bihar Education Service and that  under r. 5 of the Pension Rules, he is entitled to pension.      After the  mandamus  was  issued  by  this  Court,  the petitioner approached amongst others the then Chief Minister of Bihar  late Shri Kedar Pandey for implementing and giving effect to  the mandamus,  issued by  the Supreme  Court. The Chief Minister directed that even though more than two years have elapsed since the issuance of the mandamus of the Chief Minister himself  directed ten months prior to June 25, 1973 for payment  of the  claim of  the  petitioner  as  soon  as possible and  had insisted  upon a weekly progress report on the processing  of the file to be submitted to him, yet even the Chief Minister recorded his helplessness that he neither received  the  weekly  report  nor  the  mandamus  has  been implemented nor  even the  file was  submitted to  the Chief Minister for  his perusal.  If this  be plight  of the Chief Minister of  a popularly  elected government what to talk of the lesser  fly and  what tears  can be  shed for  a man  in position of  the petitioner  who having rendered service for nearly 40 years was chasing the mirage for a paltry pension. The Chief  Minister apprehended that it is quite likely that not only the officers responsible for this mess but even the State Government  may be called upon by the Supreme Court to explain the  disregard of  the  mandamus.  He  then  made  a peremptory order  that the  file be  submitted  to  him  for order. 924      Nothing moved  as is  the sad  experience that  nothing moves A  unless like  the law  of inertia some outside force acts upon  it and puts the file in motion. What that outside force is  we need  not dilate.  Ultimately, the file reached the Chief  Minister in 1974 on being called by him. There is the long preamble setting out the history of litigation, the injustice done  to the  petitioner, the  utter lethargy  and aptly of  the officers concerned and then the Chief Minister proceeded  to   dispose  of  the  claim  of  the  petitioner consistent with the mandamus issued by this Court.      The material  portion which  would help us in disposing of the present petition recites that the petitioner shall be treated in  Class II  posts of Bihar Education Service since his promotion  and since  1.1.1952 he  should be  deemed  to belong to  Class I  post of Selection Grade according to his seniority or  from the  date  of  direct  appointment  which derived the  petitioner of  equal opportunity,  he was fully entitled to.  But the  note is overgrowing with the courtesy of the  Chief Minister  in that  he proceeded to request the Education  Minister   that  for   the  ends  of  justice,  a phraseology  to   which  the   courts  are  accustomed,  the petitioner should  be paid  off his claim within a month for which any senior officer of the Education Department he made responsible. Undue delay has been made in the implementation of the  direction of  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court and I would never like  that Shri  prasad be  compelled again  to go  to Court.’ What a wishful thinking. In that Mr. Prasad has been forced to  come back  to this  Court and since then the then Chief Minister has left this world.      The resume  the narration, petitioner received a letter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

dated February  6, 1976-3 years after the direction given by the Chief  Minister-that his pension case has been finalised and pension  payment order  of Rs.  156.55 p.m. and gratuity payment order  of Rs. 5,850 are under issue. It would appear at a  glance that  officers dealing  with the  pension  case appears to have scant regard for the decision of the Supreme Court in  that both  the promotion  to Class  II and further promotion to  Class I  from deemed  dates were  ignored  and pension was  computed on  the basis as if petitioner retired in Class  III. All  the  representation  of  the  petitioner thereafter failed to evoke both a sympathetic response and a just decision and therefore the petitioner is back to square one.      The respondent-State  and all its officers are bound to compute pension  of the  petitioner not  only on the footing that he is a member 925 Of the  Bihar Education Service but also on the footing that he was  promoted to  Class II  by the  date mentioned in the earlier judgment  A and  from 1.1.1952 to Class I as rightly held by the Chief Minister. Nothing was pointed out to us by Mr. Goburdhan  to hold  to the contrary nor can the State be permitted to play ducks and drakes with a solemn decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court.      To give  effect to  the mandamus  of  this  Court,  the respondent State shall proceed to compute the salary payable to the petitioner from the date he was promoted, to Class II Service and  on the  assumption that  he was  functioning in Class  II  in  the  salary  scale  then  admissible  to  him equivalent to  Class II  Grade in  Bihar Education  Service. This must  commence from the date from which he was promoted as set  out in  the earlier  judgment as Deputy Inspector of Schools at  Seraikela.  In  computing  the  salary  for  the purpose of  computation Class II salary scale then prevalent for the  post shall be taken up and the petitioner is deemed to have  been put in that scale. Yearly increments are added till 1.1.1952  when he  must be deemed to have been promoted as admitted  by the  Chief Minister to Class I post in Bihar Education Service.  Same process  is to  be repeated  by the respondent-State in  that the  then prevalent  Class I scale must be  held admissible  to the  petitioner from January 1, 1952. He must be 15 deemed to have been put in the scale and his annual increments to be worked out. If in the process he is entitled  to Selection Grade, the same must be worked out and this  computation must be brought down to 10.1.1967 when the petitioner  retired on  superannuation from  service. On this computation  of salary  his pension  shall be  computed under the  relevant rules  of the  Bihar  Pension  Rules  as liberalised from time to time till 1967 and his pension must be  determined   as  on   10.1.1967  on  the  aforementioned computation chart.      The State  and the subordinate officers responsible for this work  are directed  by a  writ of  mandamus to complete this computation  by July  31, 1983 and by that date pension payment order  correct and  consistent  with  the  direction herein given shall be issued without fail to the petitioner. The State  is also  directed by  a mandamus of this Court to pay  the   arrears  of   pension  on   the   afore-mentioned computation within  the same period with interest at 6% from 10.1.67. As  the officers  of the  State have  harassed  the petitioner which we 926 feel is intentional, deliberate and motivated, therefore, we are constrained  to award  exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the petitioner before July 31, 1983.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    We propose  to leave no one in doubt that the slightest failure or  deviation in  the time  schedule in carrying out this mandamus  will be  unquestionably visited with contempt action. H.L.C.                                     Petition allowed. 927