Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 403 (JHR)

Rajiv Ranjan Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand

2010-04-01

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT : By Court.---Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.10.2002 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner's claim for fixing his pension in the revised scale of Junior Engineer at Rs. 5,000-8,500/-, has been rejected and also for a direction upon the Respondents to fix the petitioner's pension in the revised scale of Junior Engineer i.e. Rs. 5,000-8,000/- with effect from 2.3.1982 and to give all the consequential benefits of such revision including the arrears of salary, time to time pay revision/increments, time bound promotion etc. and to compute the pension accordingly. 3. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed initially on the post of Supervisor Grade III in the pay scale of Rs. 120-200/- on 6.2.1967. Later, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Overseer in the pay scale of Rs. 115-5-145-EB-5-195-EB-5-225/- and he joined the said post on 2.3.1972. The pay-scale of the Sub-Overseer was revised with effect from 1.1.1971 in the scale of. Rs. 240-6-300EB-8-396/. Since the scale of pay of the post of Supervisor Grade-III was higher than the pay scale of Sub-Overseer, the petitioner• was granted pay protection and his pay was fixed at Rs. 308/- per month with effect from 1.1.1971 in the revised pay scale of Sub-Overseer in the pay scale of Rs. 240-6-300-EB-8396/- and he was allowed to cross the 1 st Efficiency Bar from 5.4.1971. Consequent upon the Revision, he was granted increments from time to time. Later, by a Notification- issued on 13.12.1976, the State Government had decided to grant promotion to all the Sub-overseers, who were renamed as Junior Engineers. In pursuance to the above Resolution, the petitioner who was holding the post of Sub-Junior Engineer, Gandak Canal Circle, Bettiah was transferred to the vacant post of Junior Engineer in the office of the Water Development Division, Garhwa, Camp Danapur by the order of the Chief Engineer, Tenu, Sone and North Koel, Patna, dated 11.4.1977 and he immediately assumed office on the post of Junior Engineer on and from 16.5.1977. . After joining the post, he was given annual increments from time to time. With effect from 1.4.1981, the Revision in the pay-scale was effected. However, on re-fixation of pay, .the petitioner's pay-scale was fixed in the scale of Rs. 535-760/- on the post of Sub-Junior Engineer at Rs. . After joining the post, he was given annual increments from time to time. With effect from 1.4.1981, the Revision in the pay-scale was effected. However, on re-fixation of pay, .the petitioner's pay-scale was fixed in the scale of Rs. 535-760/- on the post of Sub-Junior Engineer at Rs. 810/- per month with effect from 1.4.1981 and the increments, thereafter was granted accordingly. The petitioner, filed several representations before the concerned authorities for correction of the wrong pay fixation in the light of the Resolution of the State Government, dated 13.12.1976, but the correction was not made and though he continued to work on the post of Junior Engineer but his pay continued to be fixed on the scale of Sub-Junior Engineer. Later, pursuant to the Transfer order, the petitioner joined under the Bihar State Construction Corporation, Patna on 27.6.1996, on the post of the Junior Engineer and thereafter, with effect from 1.1.1996, his revised pay-scale on the post of Junior Engineer was fixed at Rs. 2,750/-. He continued to receive such pay-scale till 24.3.1991, but he was not granted any increments. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he continued to remain on the post of Junior Engineer, even upon his transfer from one Department to another yet, except fixing his pay on the scale of Rs. 1,500-2,750/- which, on subsequent Revision, was fixed at Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, he was never given any of the annual increments to which he was entitled. In such circumstances, he eventually retired from service with effect from 31st January, 2003 from Garhwa and his last scale of pay continued to remain at Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, which was the minimum basic pay applicable to the post of the Junior Engineer. His further grievance is that his pension has been fixed only on the minimum basic pay without taking into account the annual increments, to which he was entitled over and above the pay-scale. 5. The claim of the petitioner has been hotly contested by both the Respondent-State of Bihar as also by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand on the common ground that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Supervisor Grade III and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Overseer, which is• now termed as Sub-Junior Engineer and he was superannuated on the post of the• Sub-junior Engineer on 31st January, 2003. The specific stand, taken by the Respondents, as appearing in their counter affidavits, is that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of the Junior Engineer. It is further contended that in the year. 1976, the Public Works Department issued a letter regarding the norms of appointment for the post of Junior Engineer vide Notification dated 31.5.1976. This Notification had intended to grant promotion to the Draftsman, Clerk, Laboratory Assistant working in various works department on the post of Junior Engineer, who had obtained part time diploma in Engineering and had completed six years of satisfactory service. Subsequently, by another notification, the period of experience was enhanced from six years to 10 years and in accordance with the above-mentioned Notifications, the Surveyors, Supervisors, Draftsman, etc. were appointed on the post of Junior Engineers. It is further claimed that the subsequent Policy decision notified by the Government Circular dated 14.3.1977, declared the post of the Junior Engineer as a Gazetted post and requiring the candidates to appear through the State Public Service Commission. 6. The stand taken by the Respondents is that though the petitioner, in pursuance to the earlier Government Circular of 1976, was granted pay-scale applicable to the post of Junior Engineer but consequent upon the Circular, issued in the year 1977, the petitioner was reverted to his initial substantive post of Supervisor and Sub-Junior Engineer and, therefore, he continued to receive fixed payment on the scale of Rs. 5,000/- per month as basic salary together with D.A. and other allowances and upon his retirement, his pension was computed on the basis of the fixed salary of the post of the Sub-Junior Engineer. 7. 5,000/- per month as basic salary together with D.A. and other allowances and upon his retirement, his pension was computed on the basis of the fixed salary of the post of the Sub-Junior Engineer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue on the other hand that, this issue was earlier thrashed before the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Sevak Singh and Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others and in L.P.A No. 913 of 1996 and analogous appeals and in all the aforesaid cases, filed by the personnel similarly situated as the petitioner and considering the background facts, under which the Surveyors were appointed, the Court had taken note of the fact that by the Circular, issued by the Public Works Department, dated 13.12.1976, it was provided that such of the Surveyors, who had obtained their diploma in Engineering and who had discharged ten years of continuous service would be given automatic promotion to the post of the Junior Engineers. The Court had also observed that pursuant to the aforesaid Circular, once the Government has decided that the Surveyors may be promoted upon completing the length of service for the qualifying factor and it, therefore, hardly matters whether the posts were Gazetted or not. Upon considering the aforesaid background facts, the Court also observed that the Surveyors, who were appointed pursuant to the decision for recruiting the personnel under the Five Year Plan and for whom a separate policy decision was taken by the Government on 13.12 1976, lays down the rules of promotion and any promotion denied to this cadre of Surveyors needs to be restored and continued. The Court had also observed that any subsequent Rule altering the aforesaid position as laid down in 1976 Circular, cannot deny the benefits, which had already accrued to this cadre under the 1976 Circular. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner was also one of the appointees alongwith several others, and the 1976 Circular does squarely apply to the case of the petitioner as in the case of the others, who were appointed alongwith the petitioner and the ratio as decided by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Sevak Singh (supra) squarely applies to the case of the present petitioner. 8. 8. I have carefully gone through the• facts mentioned in the judgment of the Divison Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Sevak Singh (supra), and find on perusal of the petitioner's case that the facts are identical. The petitioner was also one of the appointees alongwith several others, who were appointed initially as Surveyors for the purpose of putting the Five Year Plan in execution. As observed in the judgment in the case of Ram Sevak Singh (supra), the Government had taken a policy decision on 13.12.1976, laying down the rule for promotion of all recruited Surveyors to the post of the Junior Engineers. The policy decision was therefore, in respect of those particular cadre of recruits, who were initially appointed as Surveyors. It further appears that upon considering the objections raised by the Respondent-State Government regarding the application of the subsequent Circular of 1977, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in the case of Ram Sevak Singh (supra), has declared that the benefits accrued to this cadre of recruits, pursuant to the Government Policy decision on 13.12.1976, could not be denied to them and any promotion denied to this cadre of surveyors "needs to be restored and continued. 9. It also appears from the facts of this case that admittedly, the petitioner in pursuance to the Government Circular of 13.12.1976, was granted promotion to the post of Junior Engineer after considering the fact that he had completed the minimum stipulated period of work experience in the lower' pay-scale and his revised scale of pay was consequently fixed at Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. This being an undisputed fact, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be given the benefits of the annual increments in the stipulated pay-scale of Junior Engineer on which he was admittedly acknowledged by the concerned authorities of the respondents, as it appears from the. several transfer orders, in which his designation has been mentioned on the post of Junior Engineer. 10. I am satisfied that the ratio decided in the case of Ram Sevak Singh (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the petitioner's case and the petitioner is therefore, entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. This writ application is, therefore, allowed. several transfer orders, in which his designation has been mentioned on the post of Junior Engineer. 10. I am satisfied that the ratio decided in the case of Ram Sevak Singh (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the petitioner's case and the petitioner is therefore, entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. This writ application is, therefore, allowed. The concerned authorities of the Respondents including the Respondent State of Bihar and the Respondent-State of Jharkhand shall ensure that appropriate orders are passed, confirming the• pay-scale of the petitioner on the post of the Junior Engineer and after specifying the -date from which the petitioner is found entitled to the scale of pay of the post of the Junior Engineer, shall assess the amount of annual increments and other consequential monetary benefits which he would have earned and after assessing the total amount, issue the corresponding necessary orders to enable the Office of the Accountant General to issue the required sanction orders for the purpose of enabling the petitioner for payment of such assessed amount due to him. This exercise must be undertaken and concluded by the concerned authorities of the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The concerned authorities of the Respondents-State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand, for compliance with the directions contained in this order, may make any correspondence, which they may feel necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the factual position as also for assessment of the dates on which the annual increment had accrued to the petitioner. 11. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.