Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 674 (JHR)

Nagendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-01

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT: Since the issues involved in both these cases are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in both these writ applications is against the inaction on the part of the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to redress the grievance of the petitioners for payment of the arrears of the monetary benefits to which, the petitioners are repeatedly entitled. 3. Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned C.G.S.C. for the Respond ent-Union of India and Mr. Arvind Kr. Mehta, learned J.C. to G.P.I for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand as also Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Bihar in both the cases. 4. The petitioners are employees of the B.I.T., Sindri, which was earlier under the erstwhile State of Bihar and after the bifurcation of the State, now under the State of Jharkhand. The claim for the monetary benefits of the petitioners has been pending for the periods (i) from 01.01.1986 to July, 1989 and (ii) from 01.01.1996 to 14.11.2000. The demand of the petitioners in both these writ applications, is for payment of the arrears of salary in the revised pay-scales and accordingly, the consequential monetary benefits on the revised pension. Earlier, the petitioners had filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 4972 of 2007. While disposing of the writ application vide order dated 11.09.2007, (Annexure-8) this Court had directed the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to consider the representations of the petitioners and also to pay the monetary benefits to the petitioners individually to the extent, they are found entitled, together with statutory interest. Such exercise was to be carried out within the stipulated period of two months from the date of the order. This order having not been complied with and on the contrary, the State of Jharkhand, having rejected the petitioners’ claim, the instant writ application has been filed by the petitioners for redressal of the same grievance. 5. Mr. V. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners’ claim for monetary benefits has not been disputed by any of the Respondents. The dispute, as it appears, is on the issue as to who should bear the financial burden. 5. Mr. V. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners’ claim for monetary benefits has not been disputed by any of the Respondents. The dispute, as it appears, is on the issue as to who should bear the financial burden. While the counsel for the Respondent-State of Bihar informs that at the time when the Institute was within the jurisdiction of the State of Bihar, the State Government was expecting the release of the full amount of grant from the Central Government but it has not received the matching grant from the Central Government. Nevertheless, out of the 20 per cent, which the Government of Bihar was supposed to bear, the amounts have already been released to the concerned Institution, namely the B.I.T., Sindri. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Bihar would add that the issue as to who should bear the financial liabilities of the Government servants, who are employed within the institutions located within the territories of the State of Jharkhand, prior to the date of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, settled and the liability had to be undertaken has now been by State of Jharkhand by virtue of an Agreement entered into by and between the authorized representatives of both the Governments. Learned counsel refers in this context to the Agreement dated 30.09.2001 and the subsequent Agreement dated-28.10.2002, whereby a decision was taken that the entire financial liabilities shall be borne by the State of Jharkhand, subject to final adjustment in terms of the specific clauses of the aforesaid Agreements. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand, reiterates that the financial liabilities relates to the period when the Institution, namely, the B.I.T. Sindri, was under the jurisdiction of the erstwhile State of Bihar and therefore, such liability, after the cadre bifurcation is of the State of Bihar alone, which has to bear the financial liability. Learned counsel, however does not controvert the statements of the learned counsel for the State of Bihar in respect of the Agreements mentioned above and on the contrary, he would want to rely upon judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Badri Narain Jha & others-versus-State of Bihar and others, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10546 of 2004, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide order passed in 8. As against this, learned counsel for the State of Bihar would refer to and rely upon the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Upendra Kishore Bakshi-versus-State of Jharkhand & others, in W.P. (S) No. 2859 of 2004, passed on 22nd December, 2006. Learned counsel submits further that in this decision, the Court has categorically declared that the financial liabilities, which had accrued prior to the date of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar in respect of the Government employees, who were working in the institutions, situated within the territories of State of Jharkhand, should be borne by the State of Jharkhand in terms of the Agreement dated 30.09.2001 arrived at between both the Governments, which may be subject to the final adjustments, as per the terms of Agreement. 9. Upon considering the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court as also the judgment passed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Nagendra Prasad & others (Supra) and also on the basis of the Agreement referred to by the learned counsel for the State of Bihar, the genuineness of which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand, and also considering the fact that the claim of the petitioners in respect of their demand for payment of their arrears of salary by virtue of the fact that they were employed in the B.I.T., Sindri and had retired from the Institution, in my considered opinion, the State of Jharkhand should bear the financial liability of paying the arrears of difference of salary to the petitioners in terms of the Agreement dated 30.09.2001 entered into by and between both the Governments. Accordingly, I direct the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to consider individually the monetary claims of the petitioners and to pay the same to them in accordance with the directions as contained in the order dated 11.09.2007, passed in the case of Dr. Nagendra Prasad and others (Supra). The payable amounts shall be released by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to the petitioners positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order together with interest @ 10 per cent per annum calculated from the date, when the earlier order was passed in the case of Dr. Nagendra Prasad & others (Supra) i.e. on 11.09.2007, till the final payment. 10. Nagendra Prasad & others (Supra) i.e. on 11.09.2007, till the final payment. 10. With these observations both these writ applications are disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 11. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand.