Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 412 (JHR)

Smt. Meena Thakur v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-04-03

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners who are all Child Development Project Officers, were appointed as such by issue of an office order dated 11.10.2000 as contained in An-nexure-2 to the writ petition, through the Bihar Public Service Commission. They are all posted in different Districts in the State of Jharkhand such as, the petitioner No. 1 is posted in the District of Dumka, the petitioner No. 2 is posted in the District of West Singhbhum, petitioner No. 3 is posted in the District of Ranchi, petitioner No. 4 is posted in the District of-Chatra and the petitioner No. 5 is posted in the District of Lohardaga. 3. The petitioners were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500. When they were not given any annual increment, they filed a representation before the Director, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand stating therein that they were working as Child Development Project Officers since last 3 to 4 years and pursuant to the Government letter No. 765, dated 11.4.2002, they all have completed job course training and have also passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination but still they are not being given annual increments, though the other senior Child Development Project Officers working in the Department, were getting the same benefits. The Director Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, by a letter dated 28.7.2004, addressed to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the said Department, requested to take a decision in the matter of giving annual increments to the Child Development Project Officers. 4. The Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand Department of Welfare also requested his counterpart of the State of Bihar to make available any order/Circular of their Government regarding annual increments to the Child Development Project Officers because in absence of any service Rule, the Child Development Project Officers of Jharkhand were not getting annual increments. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that at one hand, the Government has not framed any Rule with regard to the service conditions of the Child Development Project Officers and on the other hand, wrongly and illegally issued an office order contained in Memo-No. 473 dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure-10), putting certain absolutely illegal and unreasonable condition for providing annual increments to the Child Development Project Officers. In the said letter it was stated that for giving annual increments to the Child Development Project Officers, following four conditions are required to be fulfilled: i. Two years of continuous service; ii. Four weeks of Treasury Training, iii. Passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination; iv. Passing of Accounts Examination. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that till date, the Government has not framed any Service Rules for the Child Development Project Officers and in absence of any Service rules, the Board of Revenue has refused to take Accounts Examination therefore, the said condition of passing accounts examination cannot be fulfilled by any Child Development Project Officer. The petitioners also submitted a representation to the Government on 4.1.2007 through their Association making a request that the condition for passing of Accounts Examination for annual increments should be withdrawn but nothing has been done till now by. the Department in that regard. 7. According to the petitioners, they were appointed through B.P.S.C. in the year 2000 before creator of the State of Jharkhand and those Child Development Project Officers who were appointed along with the petitioners and are posted in the State of Bihar, are getting the benefits of annual increments in their State. It is further alleged that even those Child Development Project Officers who were appointed along with the petitioners in the State of Bihar but after final allocation of cadre, have joined in the State of Jharkhand Cadre, are also getting the benefits of annual increments and therefore, the action of the respondents-State of Jharkhand in not giving annual increment to the petitioners is absolutely illegal and discriminatory. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand wherein, the facts stated by the petitioners in the writ petition, have not been specifically disputed. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that passing of Accounts Examination has been introduced by the Government in order to equip the Child Development Project Officers with adequate knowledge of the Accounting procedures so that they could work more effectively. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that passing of Accounts Examination has been introduced by the Government in order to equip the Child Development Project Officers with adequate knowledge of the Accounting procedures so that they could work more effectively. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that framing of Service Rules for Child Development Project Officer is under process and has not yet been finalised and till it is finalised by way of ad-hoc measure, certain conditions have been provided extending the benefit of annual increments to the Child Development Project Officers by issue of memo No. 473, dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure-10). 9. It has also been stated in he counter-affidavit that since Central Examination Committee is not conducting examination for Child Development Project Officers in [ absence of recruitment rules therefore, sanctioning annual increment to them has remained at stand still 10. In view of the facts noticed above and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, in my view, the condition of passing accounts examination mentioned in the office order dated 18/5/2006, i.e. Annexure-10 to the writ petition, for giving annual increments to the Child Development Project Officers is unjustified and unreasonable and, as such, is illegal for the reasons that when the petitioners were appointed in the year 2000 as Child Development Project Officers before creation of the State of Jharkhand at that time there was no such condition put by the State of Bihar and after creation of the State of Jharkhand no any rule regarding service condition of the Child Development Project Officers has been framed by the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, putting such condition of passing accounts examination, as contained in Annexure-10, for giving annual increment, cannot be sustained. 11. The action of the respondents in not providing annual increments to the petitioners and similarly situated Child Development Project Officers is also discriminatory since, admittedly the other Child Development Project Officers, who are either senior to the petitioners or are their batch-mates, who have joined the State of Jharkhand after final allocation of cadre, are getting the said benefit of annual increments. 12. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the condition of passing the Accounts examination as mentioned in the office order dated 18.5.2006, contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the respondent State of Jharkhand is directed to take immediate steps for giving the benefits of annual increments to the petitioners and similarly situated other Child Development Project Officers forthwith.