Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1601 (JHR)

Gopin Kisku v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-17

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Order The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the present petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher with the respondents and he retired on 31st of July, 2006. As per the service book and the record of the services of the present petitioner which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition, last pay drawn is more than Rs. 7,850/- per month and, therefore, retirement benefits ought to have been reckoned or calculated on the basis of pay scale at Rs. 7850/-. Instead of doing this, respondents corporation has passed the order at Annexure-2, for calculation of retirement benefits, of the basis of pay-scale at Rs. 6650/-, without passing an order of reduction of pay-scale. 2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that never any order has been passed by the respondents, reducing the pay-scale of the petitioner from Rs. 7,850/ to Rs. 6,650/-. Therefore, order at Annexure-2 is patently erroneous and against the provisions of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has submitted that the petitioner was wrongly given higher pay-scale and, therefore, on the basis of Accountant General Audit Report, pay-scale of the petitioner has been refixed Rs. 6,650/-. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that thereafter show cause notice was given and inquiry was conducted and the pay-scale was reduced and the order at Annexure-2 is in consonance with the law and in the facts of the case. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:- (i) the present petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher with the respondents since long and, thereafter, the petitioner has reached at the age of superannuation on 31st of July, 2006. Looking to the Annexure-1 which is service-book, the last pay drawn was Rs. 7,850/- as on 1st of November, 2005 and the retirement benefits ought to have been calculated on that basis. (ii) it appears from Annexure-2, that the respondents has given the retirement benefits on the basis of payscale at Rs. 6,650/- per month without passing any order of reduction of payscale. 7,850/- as on 1st of November, 2005 and the retirement benefits ought to have been calculated on that basis. (ii) it appears from Annexure-2, that the respondents has given the retirement benefits on the basis of payscale at Rs. 6,650/- per month without passing any order of reduction of payscale. (iii) it also appears that there is no order of reduction of pay- scale of the present petitioner and never a copy of such order has been given to the petitioner. Never any opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner, never such order has been passed against the present petitioner and no such order has been even annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Looking to the counter-affidavit, it appears to this Court that there is no order passed by the respondents whereby the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs. 7,850/- to Rs. 6,650/- month. Neither a show cause notice has been annexed with the counter-affidavit nor copy of the order has been annexed with the counter-affidavit nor the counsel for the respondent has pointed out any order of reduction of pay-scale of petitioner to this Court. In absence of such an order, communication at Annexure-2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iv) it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, no proceedings have been initiated, as required under the aforesaid rules against the present petitioner and this averment has been made in Paragraph No. 15 of the petition which has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed at Ann~xure-2 dated 14th of February, 2007, reserving liberty with the respondents to pass correct and legal orders, in accordance with law, if at all they are choosing to pass any order against the present petitioner especially, keeping in mind Section 43(b) of the Rules, 2000 and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his/her representative. Thus, in absence of any such type of separate order of reduction of payscale of the petitioner, as per Rules or as required under Section 43(b) of the Rules, 2000, the order at Annexure-2, is hereby quashed and set aside, reserving aforesaid liberty with the respondents. 7. Thus, in absence of any such type of separate order of reduction of payscale of the petitioner, as per Rules or as required under Section 43(b) of the Rules, 2000, the order at Annexure-2, is hereby quashed and set aside, reserving aforesaid liberty with the respondents. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.