Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1514 (JHR)

Saryu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2012-10-04

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT: By Court:-he petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for direction to release his pension, and retiral benefits according to the revised pay scale. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, an order was passed by the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner, thereafter, prayed for amendment in the prayer seeking quashing of the order dated 27.05.2009. 3. When the case is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner confines his petition, praying for quashing the order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the Secretary Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand by which the petitioner’s claim has been denied. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he was a senior most upper division clerk and working as Accountant in the Ranchi Treasury, he should have been given promotion to the post of Senior Accountant with that pay scale. Higher scale of Rs.6500-10500/-was given to the other Assistants working in the office, namely, Lankeshwar Ram, Shyam Bihari Lal, Jagarnath Prasad Thakur and Kemeshwar Lal Das and pay protection should have been at least, given to the petitioner in order to avoid anomaly in his pay. 5. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled for the higher pray scale of Senior Accountant considering the requirement on ‘Need Based Post’. 6. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in Hazaribagh Collectorate on 2.8.1965 in the pay scale of Rs.105-155. The said scale was revised from time to time on pay revisions. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 24.05.1976 and was posted in Ranchi Treasury. During his posting in Treasury, the petitioner was given Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30.11.1998. The pay scale of the petitioner at that time was Rs.1800-3300/-. The said scale was subsequently revised to Rs.5500-9000/-. The petitioner claimed that in view of ‘Need Based Post’, he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. The petitioner further claimed that ankeshwar Ram, Shyam Bihari Lal, Jagarnath Prasad Thakur and Kemeshwar Lal Das were junior to the petitioner were given pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. The petitioner claimed that in view of ‘Need Based Post’, he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. The petitioner further claimed that ankeshwar Ram, Shyam Bihari Lal, Jagarnath Prasad Thakur and Kemeshwar Lal Das were junior to the petitioner were given pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. Even if the petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Senior Accountant, his pay should have been protected in order to avoid anomaly in his pay. His claim was forwarded by the Treasury Officer, Ranchi and was pending before the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. 7. On 30.3.2009 the Finance Commissioner, Jharkhand was added as respondent no.2 and was directed to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass appropriate order. 8. The Finance Commissioner, Jharkhand by order dated 27.05.2009 passed a reasoned order refusing the petitioner’s claim on the following grounds: (I) The benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme(ACP for short) is given, if the petitioner is not given promotion after completion of 12 years and 24 years of continuous service. The said Scheme was brought into effect from 9.8.1999. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Junior Selection Grade during his service period. He retired on 30.11.1998 before implementation of ACP Scheme and, as such, he is not entitled to get the benefit of ACP Scheme. (II) Lankeshwar Ram, Shyam Bihari Lal, Jagarnath Prasad Thakur and Kemeshwar Lal Das were not given any promotion during their service period and, as such, they were given monetary benefits under the ACP Scheme after retirement of the petitioner. There was, therefore, no question of supersession or pay protection of the petitioner. The allegation of anomaly in the pay is, therefore, wholly without any basis. So far as creation of ‘Need Based Post’ is concerned, the same is created on the basis of the need. No such post was needed since 1.1.1996 in Ranchi Treasury where the petitioner was posted. Even before that there was no such upper post in the Ranchi Treasury. Subsequently, the Collectorate of Treasury was merged in district cadre and the seniority is to be decided on that basis. The petitioner's claim on that basis was found not admissible or acceptable as aforesaid. 9. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 27.05.2009, which has been brought on record by way of amendment as Annexure-8. 10. Subsequently, the Collectorate of Treasury was merged in district cadre and the seniority is to be decided on that basis. The petitioner's claim on that basis was found not admissible or acceptable as aforesaid. 9. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 27.05.2009, which has been brought on record by way of amendment as Annexure-8. 10. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order has been passed without considering the provisions of Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules and other provisions and the order is also factually wrong. In support thereof, learned counsel has referred to Rule-37 of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous rules as well as Rules 4, 40 and 60 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the said Rules and the Code, there was need of such post, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of that post. The Treasury Officer also recommended for creation of post, but inspite of the recommendation of the Treasury Officer, the Government did not create the post and has not extended the post of Senior Accountant to the petitioner. 12. The State-respondents have refuted the petitioner’s claim by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated that there was no such post of Senior Accountant, Ranchi Treasury. The persons quoted by the petitioner were given benefits of ACP after retirement of the petitioner and his case is not at par with the said persons. Since the petitioner has already retired, he was not available for extending those benefits after implementation of the said Scheme. The post has to be a sanctioned at a particular place in accordance with the need and no post of Senior Accountant was created in Ranchi Treasury. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner is imaginary. He has claimed pay scale of a post, which was yet to be created. His claim was thoroughly considered by the Finance Commissioner, Jharkhand and has been turned down by recording speaking reasons. The writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. I find that the claim of the petitioner has been thoroughly considered by the Finance Commissioner and has been rejected by giving reasons. The writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. I find that the claim of the petitioner has been thoroughly considered by the Finance Commissioner and has been rejected by giving reasons. The Finance Commissioner has dealt with each ground of the petitioner and found the same without any basis. 15. The petitioner has challenged the said order at the strength of Rule-37 of Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, which is captioned as officers to whom money is entrusted are personally responsible. There is nothing in the rules providing or showing any post of Senior Accountant in Treasury. Further, Rule-4 of Jharkhand Treasury Code deals with District Treasuries. Section IV-General System of Control over Treasury. It also does not show that there is any sanctioned post of Senior Accountant in the Treasury. Rule 42 of Jharkhand Treasury Code provides that Each treasury, the cash business of which is not conducted by the Bank, is divided into two departments-that of accounts under the charge of any accountant, and that of cash, stamp and opium(if any) under the charge of the treasurer. It also does not show that any such post was sanctioned in the Ranchi Treasury. Rule-60 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code provides that the Accountant is responsible under the orders of the Treasury Officer for keeping complete records of cash and book transactions of the district and subordinate treasuries etc. in accordance with the directions and orders in force. The said rule is also irrelevant for the purpose of the petitioner. 16. I, therefore, find no material on record in support of the petitioner’s claim. 17. There is no valid ground for assailing the impugned order dated 27.05.1009 passed by the Finance Commissioner, Jharkhand. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.