Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 918 (JHR)

Bhrigunath Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-02

D.N.PATEL

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been preferred against an order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 27th August, 2002 at Annexure 17 to the memo of the present petition, whereby the respondents have denied granting B.A. trained scale to the petitioner. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that initially the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2178 of 1990 (R) was preferred by the petitioner for getting B.A. trained scale whereby it has been stated that all other juniors of the petitioner were given B.A. trained scale and, therefore, this Court had directed respondent no. 5 to decide the case of the present petitioner for getting B.A. trained scale. Thereafter, no decision was taken by the concerned respondent authorities and, therefore, another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4299 of 1996 (R) was preferred by the petitioner and this Court had taken note of the lethargic approach of the concerned officer and pointed out that respondents have not taken care to read the earlier order. With these observations for the respondent officers, once again direction was given to respondent no. 5 to pass an order upon claim of the petitioner for getting B.A. trained scale. 3. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that after this order a decision is taken in August, 2002 at Annexure 17 to the memo of the present petition that petitioner had not satisfactorily rendered his services and, therefore, he was not given B.A. trained scale. It is vehemently submitted by counsel for the petitioner that this is nothing, but, an after thought. In the reply of the earlier two petitions, never such ground was taken by the respondents. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent no. 4, but never this ground was agitated that services rendered by the petitioner was not upto the mark of satisfaction. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as stated in para 30 of the petition, never any adverse remark has been communicated to the petitioner prior to his superannuation i.e. on 30th June, 2002. Thus, in the impugned order, the reason given is absolutely dehors the fact and record, just for the sake of giving reason, the same has been given without any evidence and without any background or support of the facts. Thus, in the impugned order, the reason given is absolutely dehors the fact and record, just for the sake of giving reason, the same has been given without any evidence and without any background or support of the facts. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that despite the order passed by this Court dated 23rd September, 2003, no retirement benefits have been paid to the petitioner except pension and gratuity. Pension and gratuity are paid only after the order passed by this Court. 4. I have heard counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5, who has submitted that looking to the order at Annexure 17 to the memo of the present petition dated 27th August, 2002, if the services rendered by the petitioner are not satisfactory, then petitioner is not entitled for B.A. trained scale, which has been communicated by respondent no. 4 and, therefore, petitioner is not given B.A. trained scale and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard counsel for respondent no. 6, who has submitted that by now pension is being paid to the petitioner and likewise amount of gratuity has also been sanctioned and the same has been authorised. In this regard, two affidavits have also been filed by respondent no. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) Petitioner joined the services in the year 1970 with respondent no. 4 thereafter in July 1979, petitioner acquired the qualification of the B.A. trained teacher. In November, 1985, petitioner was granted Intermediate of Arts trained scale w.e.f. 1975 and, thereafter, juniors of the petitioner were given B.A. trained scale, but, the petitioner was denied B.A. trained scale and, therefore, time and again the representations were made, but, no decision was taken up and, therefore, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2178 of 1990 (R) before the High Court at Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, whereby it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26th June, 1991 (Annexure 1 to the memo of the present petition) that counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4 and it has been stated in the counter affidavit that juniors of the petitioner are given promotion and the gradation list has been referred to the State Government in the year, 1986 and, therefore, a direction was given to respondent no. 5 to take appropriate decision about the promotion of the petitioner to be given on the post of B.A. trained scale. (ii) Despite the aforesaid order, no decision was taken and, therefore, another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4299 of 1996 (R) was preferred before the High Court at Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 12th March, 1997 (Annexure 1/1 to the memo of the present petition) and it has been held as under:- “I am sorry to notice that high officials of the Govt. of Bihar do not even care to read the order of this Court and pass orders in a cavalier fashion without understanding what they are doing. In these circumstances, the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, respondent no. 5, shall now pass an order on the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the B.Ed. trained scale within a period of four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before him. Since the petitioner has already made a representation earlier annexing therewith all relevant documents, he is not required to furnish any more documents at this stage. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid direction, a note has been taken by this Court about the approach of the aforesaid officer that they have not taken care to read the earlier order and the direction was given to respondent no. 5 that he shall now pass an order on the claim of the petitioner for grant of B.A. trained scale within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. (iii) It appears that thereafter also, no decision was taken within stipulated time, but, after a lapse of much longer period i.e. in the year, 2002 on 27th August, a decision was taken by respondent no. 4 which is at Annexure 17 to the memo of petition to the effect that services rendered by the petitioner was not upto the mark of satisfaction and, therefore, he is not entitled for B.A. trained scale. 4 which is at Annexure 17 to the memo of petition to the effect that services rendered by the petitioner was not upto the mark of satisfaction and, therefore, he is not entitled for B.A. trained scale. It appears that in reply of the earlier two matters, never this stand was taken by the respondents. If the services of the petitioner are not upto the mark of satisfaction, then in the reply of the earlier two writ petitions, it ought to have been mentioned. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that never any memo has been given to the petitioner for the services rendered by him nor there is any adverse remark conveyed to the petitioner till the petitioner retired on 30th June, 2002. In view of these facts, it appears that respondent no. 4 has given the reason without any basis and without any justification. Never any notice has been given to the petitioner, when he was in service that the services of the petitioner are not upto the mark of satisfaction. The reason given in the impugned order at Annexure 17 dated 27th August, 2002 is absolutely baseless and without any proof for evidence. In reply of aforesaid two writ petitions, never this stand was taken by the respondents. Thus, reason given in the impugned order at Annexure 17, is an after thought. (iv) It also appears that this Court has passed order on 23rd September, 2003, which reads as under:- “Learned JC to AAG prays for time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. In the meantime the respondents shall release all the admitted retiral dues legally payable to the petitioner.” Despite the aforesaid order in September, 2003, no care has been taken by the respondents to file affidavit. Earlier also, this Court has taken note of lethargic approach of the respondents in a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4299 of 1996 (R). (v) It also appears that consistently the respondents are lethargic and, therefore, even admitted dues of retirement benefits of the petitioner like General Provident Fund amount is not paid. Even they have not taken care to file any reply in this matter, despite the direction, given by this Court in the year, 2003. Twice, the directions have been given to respondent no. 5 to pass the order. Ultimately the order is at Annexure 17 has been passed. Even they have not taken care to file any reply in this matter, despite the direction, given by this Court in the year, 2003. Twice, the directions have been given to respondent no. 5 to pass the order. Ultimately the order is at Annexure 17 has been passed. The reason given in the said order is no reason in eye of law. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby allow this petition and quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 27th August, 2002 at Annexure 17 to the memo of the present petition and I hereby direct respondents to give B.A. trained scale to the petitioner from the date on which the juniors of the petitioner are promoted or given B.A. trained scale. This date will be determined by respondent no. 5 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court and all consequential benefits will be given to the petitioner. Petitioner will also be paid retirement dues, which have not paid so far, including the General Provident Fund amount with statutory interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. The amount of group insurance etc. will also be paid, if not paid so far and upon all amount, the statutory interest will be paid. 8. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.