Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 243 (JHR)

Ram Babu Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-15

P.P.BHATT

body2012
Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present, when the matter is called out. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and perused the papers. 3. Petitioners by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ /order/direction for quashing the part of the circular contained in Memo No.228 dated 23.2.2005 (Annexure-9), as far as it relates to the petitioners by which a decision has been taken to abolish the sanctioned posts on which the petitioners have been validly appointed and are working and have also prayed for quashing the office order contained in Memo No.598 dated 5.5.2005 (Annexure-15) by which the petitioners have been adjusted against the post in which they were not appointed. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed against the sanctioned post and working on the said post for a long period and now, as per recommendation made, they will be adjusted against the post of Routine Clerk and Supply Clerk against the lower grade clerk in the regional offices. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the recommendation made vide note-sheet dated 17.3.2005 is totally arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It also appears that respondents ought to have considered that the Routine Clerk has no future as there is no promotional avenue whereas the Compiler has a promotional avenue. It transpires that similarly adjusting the Supply Clerks, which is a Headquarter cadre in regional office, is totally arbitrary, malafide and without jurisdiction. It is also stated that petitioners filed several representations before the authorities concerned but without considering the representations filed by the petitioners and without considering the anomalies, an office order contained in Memo No.598 dated 5.5.2005 has been issued. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, while referring the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, pointed out from para-5 that for strengthening the Public Distribution System for effective distribution of essential commodities and food-grains, the State Government took a decision to restructure and reoganise the administrative set up of Food, Supply and Commerce Department, both at the secretariat level and also at the field level. Before arriving at a decision for restructuring of the administrative set up, the proposal was placed before “Prashashi Padvarg Samiti”. The “Prashashi Padvarg Samiti” is a High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. Before arriving at a decision for restructuring of the administrative set up, the proposal was placed before “Prashashi Padvarg Samiti”. The “Prashashi Padvarg Samiti” is a High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. The other members of “Prashashi Padvarg Samiti” are the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce. It is submitted that as per the need and requirement of the Department, it was felt that there was a need to abolish or surrender some of the posts, created earlier, which have become non-essential in the present circumstances. Similarly it was felt that certain new posts, which were necessary for effective functioning for the Public Distribution System had to be created. It was felt that by keeping alive the posts which have become non-functional and have lost their purpose in due course of time should be surrendered or abolished and therefore, by keeping alive these posts, the State Government was incurring unfruitful expenditure from the public exchequer. This type of restructuring is necessary in any organization for maintaining the usefulness and vitality so that the basic purpose for which the organization is created is fulfilled. It is also pointed out that State Government after going through the recommendation of the “Prashashi Padvarg Samiti” took a decision to restructure the administrative set up in Food, Supply and Commerce Department. With the result for restructuring the administrative set up three different circulars were issued by which certain new posts were created and some were surrendered and abolished. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn attention of this Court to the averments made in para-6 of the counter-affidavit to show the details regarding restructuring of administrative set up by issuance of various circulars, mentioned therein. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also referred to and relied upon para-7 & 12 of the counter-affdavit with a view to show that pay-scales prescribed for restructuring of administrative set up in no way going to affect adversely. Petitioners have been adjusted on other posts in the same scale on which they were appointed and working earlier. 9. Learned counsel for the State has also invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-15 i.e. Memo No.598 dated 5.5.2005 to show the adjustments done by the respondents as a part of administrative restructuring exercise without affecting the pay-scale of the petitioners. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the State has also invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-15 i.e. Memo No.598 dated 5.5.2005 to show the adjustments done by the respondents as a part of administrative restructuring exercise without affecting the pay-scale of the petitioners. 10. It is submitted that there will be no change in the general service conditions of the petitioners in terms of pay, leave, general service condition and pension as applicable to other State Government employees by the impugned decision. It is lastly submitted that State Government has every right to abolish/surrender any posts created earlier which have become non-functional and unuseful in course of time and respondents have taken this decision as a part of administrative reform exercise and that too by safeguarding the interests of the petitioners. 11. Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-State and on perusal of the averments made in the counter-affidavit supported by documents, it appears that the respondents have taken the impugned decision as a part of administrative reforms process, which was required to be undertaken for effective Public Distribution System for essential commodities. It also appears that the decision for restructuring of administrative set up was done on the basis of recommendation made by the “Prashashi Padvarg Samiti”, which was a High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary and other senior Secretaries of the Government and it further appears that after considering relevant issues, the said Committee made recommendation of restructuring of administrative set up. It also appears that while undertaking this exercise, respondents have taken due care that the interests of the petitioners may not affect adversely in any manner. Interests of the petitioners have been safeguarded by adjusting them in other posts in the same pay-scale on which they were working. Moreover, in para-18 of the counter-affidavit, it has been clarified that there will be no change in the general service conditions of the petitioners in terms of pay, leave, general service conditions and pension as applicable to other State Government employees. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioners and accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.