Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 809 (JHR)

Bhuneshwar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2011-08-25

R.R.PRASAD

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court - Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the Work Charged Establishment of the Water Resources Department on 19.04.1966. After serving more than five years, the petitioner was appointed on the Post of Pump Operator on 15.06.1971 in regular Pay Scale of Rs.85-1-110/-. Since Tenughat Dam Project incurred a huge expenditure, a decision was taken by the then Government of Bihar to get those surplus employees absorbed in other Government department instead of retrenching them. Pursuant to that decision, the petitioner was appointed on absorption in Class-IV Post in the Establishment of the Collectorate with effect from 1.09.1997 in the Pay Scale of Rs.2550-3200/-. After rendering his services to the full-satisfaction of the Authority, the petitioner got retired on 30.09.2004, but the petitioner during service tenure or even thereafter was not given benefit of the A.C.P. (Assured Career Progression) though he was entitled to it as the petitioner was in regular service in the Establishment of the Collectorate, Giridih, with effect from 1.9.1997 and before that he was in regular service in the Establishment of the Water Resources Department with effect from 15.06.1971. Thus, in spite of rendering services for more than 24 years in both the Establishments when the petitioner was not given benefit of the A.C.P., the petitioner has moved to this Court for a direction to the authorities to consider the case relating to the grant of A.C.P. to the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel further submits that apart from the aforesaid relief, the petitioner has also made a prayer for a direction to the authority to fix the pay for the purpose of Pension in the Scale of Rs.2640-4000/-as the petitioner on the date of the appointment in the Establishment of Collectorate was entitled to get the salary in the said pay Scale, but presently the petitioner would not be pressing this issue as according to statement made in Paragraph-15 of the counter-affidavit, the matter is still under consideration. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had never completed 24 years in the Establishment of the Collectorate and as such, he is not entitled to get the benefits of A.C.P. as the petitioner had been appointed on absorption with effect from 1.9.1997. 5. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had never completed 24 years in the Establishment of the Collectorate and as such, he is not entitled to get the benefits of A.C.P. as the petitioner had been appointed on absorption with effect from 1.9.1997. 5. So far prayer relating to grant of A.C.P. is concerned, it does appear that the decision in respect of grant or not-grant of A.C.P. had never been taken by the authority. However, in the counter-affidavit, statement has been made that the petitioner on being appointed on absorption with effect from 1.9.1997, is not entitled to the A.C.P. as he has not completed required length of service. It is true that the petitioner had been appointed on absorption on 1.9.1997 in the Establishment of the Collectorate, but before that the petitioner, according to the statement made in the writ application was on regular post in the Establishment of Water Resources Department and was drawing salary in regular pay scale with effect from 15.06.1971. 6. It would be appropriate to state here that the aforesaid assertion made on behalf of the petitioner has never been refuted by the Water Resources Department rather from the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, the said assertion made on behalf of the petitioner has been admitted. Therefore, in such event, the petitioner can be said to be on regular post even in the Water Resources Department. In that event he as per scheme of A.C.P., would be eligible for having benefit of A.C.P. as for having benefit of A.C.P., under the scheme one should be in regular service, but the person who rendered service as Causal, Ad hoc, Contract, on Muster roll etc., would not be eligible for having benefit of A.C.P. Here in the instant case as stated above, the petitioner was in regular service in the Establishment of Water Resources Department and, therefore, period of service rendered from 15.06.1971 in the Establishment of Water Resources Department is worth consideration for the purpose of grant of A.C.P.. 7. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make a representation before the concerned authority in the matter relating to the grant of A.C.P. within a period of two weeks from today and the concerned authority will be taking decision in the matter, within a period of ten weeks thereafter. 8. Thus, this writ application is disposed of,.