Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 954 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Veena Prasad

2012-07-10

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER I.A. No. 2075 of 2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay. 2. In view of the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 2075 of 2010 is allowed and delay is condoned. L.P.A. No. 191 of 2010 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits. 4. The petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents to grant 20% of the substantive pay scale of the post of Professor, Paediatrics as additional pay, under statutory provisions of Rule 103 of Jharkhand Service Code, for the period 01.04.2002 to 30.09.2003. 5. The petitioner's claim was based on the ground that she was directed to officiate as Principal of the Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. The respondents denied the said benefit, hence the petitioner preferred writ petition. 6. We perused Rule 103 of the Jharkhand Service Code which has been quoted in the impugned judgement dated 05.10.2009 and it is clear from Sub Clause (b) under Rule 103 that such person who holds substantively, as a temporary measure, or to officiate in, two or more independent posts at one time is entitled for extra payment and as per the Note No. 4 appended to Rule 103, it is clear that this extra payment is limited to the extent of 20% of the presumptive pay of the post or duty, the Government servant is holding. Not only this, learned Single Judge relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Rai Sudhir Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2004)13 SCC 25 wherein it has been clearly held that since the appellant was holding the substantive post of Professor in medical college by officiating in two independent posts of Principal and Superintendent of the medical college as a temporary measure, in that situation he shall be entitled to additional pay at the rate of 20% of the pay of the officiating posts over and above his regular salary for the period of his officiation in such posts. 7. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. Hence, the L.P.A. is dismissed.