Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1265 (JHR)

Satyawan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had retired as a Assistant Teacher on 31st January, 2009 from Mangilal Rungta High School, Chaibasa. He had approached this Court earlier in W.P.S. No. 1586 of 2009 for consideration of his case for grant of post-retirement and other service benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5th May, 2009, directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation within a stipulated period. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court challenging the order passed on 10th February, 2011, which is contained in Memo No. 441, Annexure-4 to the writ application, by the Director, Secondary Education, whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of certain arrears totaling Rs. 61,920/-, on account of denial of two increments for the period 1979-83, have been rejected on the ground that the said school was taken over on 21.2.1983 and the said benefit claimed under letter dated 1.3.1977 was available for such schools, which were not recognized. The petitioner once again approached this Court for payment of certain retiral dues including the arrears of salary on account of those two increments totaling Rs. 61,920/-. During the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner by way of amendment, sought to challenge the said order dated 10th February, 2011, which was allowed vide order dated 29th April, 2013. 3. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rest of the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner but he is still aggrieved by the impugned order, which denies the arrears of salary totaling Rs. 61,920/-, on reckoning of two increments for the relevant period 1979-83. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision is misconceived and also passed upon wrong interpretation of the Memo No. 6747-6829 dated 1st March, 1977, which is Annexure-A to the reply of the respondent no. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the extracts of the service book, which is contained in Annexure-5 series submits that the permission to establish the school was given vide Memo No. 6242-45 dated 23rd March, 1979 as is evident from page-23 of the writ petition. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the extracts of the service book, which is contained in Annexure-5 series submits that the permission to establish the school was given vide Memo No. 6242-45 dated 23rd March, 1979 as is evident from page-23 of the writ petition. The said school Adim Jati Seva Mandal High School, Dumardagga, Ranchi was, however, recognized by the decision of the Education Department, Government of Bihar, contained in letter No. 5057-69 dated 21st February, 1983, which also reflects from the endorsement made in the service book at page-23. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the school was recognized as a Government school, the petitioner was transferred in the year 1996 in the present school, from where he has retired i.e. Mangilal Rungta High School, Chaibasa. In such circumstances, for the period the petitioner was in the Non-Government school i.e. 23rd March, 1979 to 21st February, 1983, he was entitled for two increments while calculating his pay on the date on which the school was recognized. This has, however, not been considered and taken into account in the impugned order. He also find support from Annexure-6, issued in his case by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi dated 3rd April, 2003. The relevant details of calculation are contained in Annexure-6 series prepared under the signature of the Principal of the school, from where he has retired, on 24.3.2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is, therefore, bad in law and, therefore, seeks to deny the genuine legally admissible claim of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that all the post retirement dues of the petitioner under the admissible scale of pay have been given on his retirement w.e.f. 31st January, 2009. However, it is submitted by referring the statements made in para-15 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was serving in a recognized school, which was taken over by the Government on 21st February, 1983 and as such was treated as Government employee. He is, therefore, not entitled for two increments, which are in reference to Non-Government School under the letter dated 1st March, 1977. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. He is, therefore, not entitled for two increments, which are in reference to Non-Government School under the letter dated 1st March, 1977. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. From the facts, which are born out and have been referred to hereinabove, it appears that the school Adim Jati Seva Mandal High School, Dumardagga, Ranchi was given permission to establish on 23rd March, 1979 by a Government order of erstwhile State of Bihar, which is not in dispute. 8. The school was recognized and taken over by a further Government decision, contained in letter no. 5057-69 dated 21st February, 1983. Undisputedly, during the said period, the school was not a Government school. The provisions contained in Memo No. 6747-6829 dated 1st March, 1977, Annexure-A to the reply of the respondent no. 4 as referred hereinabove, permits grant of two increments to be reckoned at the time of calculation of pay scale of teachers on the date on which the school was recognized and taken over by the Government. The petitioner was working at the salary of Rs. 50/- per month at that time when the school was not taken over in the said period and thereafter his scale had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 850/- from 21st February, 1983 onwards. The next increment had been granted on 21st February, 1984 that makes his pay as Rs. 880/-. The pay scale of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1360, vide endorsement contained in the service book and is evident from page-23 of the writ petition. In such circumstances, apparently the two increments have not been reckoned in the calculation of the petitioner's pay at the time of taking over of the school. It, however, appears that there has been misconstruction of the resolution by the Director, Secondary Education while passing the impugned order and denying the benefit of two increments in the calculation of the pay of the petitioner, for the period the school was a Non-Government school. 9. In such circumstances, the part of the impugned order, which denies the aforesaid benefits, cannot be sustained in law and is, accordingly, quashed. 10. 9. In such circumstances, the part of the impugned order, which denies the aforesaid benefits, cannot be sustained in law and is, accordingly, quashed. 10. The respondent-Director, Secondary Education should, therefore, ensure that the benefits of two increments as per the circular dated 1st March, 1977, contained at Annexure-A be calculated in the matter of fixation of his pay. The Director, Secondary Education shall, therefore, take into account the two increments to be added at the time of original fixation of the pay of the petitioner and any arrears on account of difference of salary, which is resulted because of such non-calculation, shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any consequential revision in the post retirement benefit would also be undertaken by the respondent-Director, Secondary Education within the aforesaid time as well. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Petition allowed.