Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1282 (JHR)

Chandra Shekhar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-27

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for his pay fixation from 1971, 1986 and 1996 and also for fixation of pay and release of retiral benefits. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Headmaster in a Middle School, Ranchi in the year, 1965. He passed the Diploma in Education Examination and his salary was fixed in the Graduate Trained Scale. By order as contained in Memo dated 12.05.1970, the petitioner was transferred to Hindpiri Hindi Middle School, Ranchi and posted as Assistant Teacher. As the petitioner did not join the reverted post of Assistant Teacher, he was put under suspension. The petitioner moved the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1238 of 1986 and thereafter, M.J.C. No. 141 of 1987 (R) was preferred by the petitioner. In M.J.C. No. 141 of 1987 (R), the Court by order dated 07.11.1987, directed the District Superintendent of Education to procure the service-book of the petitioner and to take necessary steps in the matter. In view of the order passed by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1238 of 1986 (R), the suspension of the petitioner stood revoked after 31.12.1986. The petitioner under the compelling circumstances was forced to join the post of Assistant Teacher on 18.09.1987. After his superannuation, the petitioner approached the Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Ranchi who, in turn, directed the EDC to look into the matter. In his report dated 18.08.2000, the EDC found the grievance of the petitioner justified and opined that the District Superintendent of Education may be directed to take appropriate step in the matter. 4. The petitioner thereafter moved from pillar to post, obtained information through R.T.I. and even though the Respondent No. 3 issued a direction on 27.07.2004 for fixation of pay-scale of the petitioner in the Trained Graduate Scale however, no step was taken and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. 4. The petitioner thereafter moved from pillar to post, obtained information through R.T.I. and even though the Respondent No. 3 issued a direction on 27.07.2004 for fixation of pay-scale of the petitioner in the Trained Graduate Scale however, no step was taken and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 admitting that, “since the service of the petitioner was treated as a teacher of nationalized Middle School, Hindpiri (Hindi), he became entitled for the benefits similar to the other employees/teachers, whose services have been taken over by the State Government.” It has further stated that– “19. That it is stated that the petitioner was transferred and posted in National Middle School, Belkidura, Raina by the order issued vide memo No. 2060 dated 18.08.1987 by the then District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi. It is further stated that the petitioner was again transferred by the then District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi vide memo No. 2838 dated 25.07.1989 to Nationalized Middle School, Bariatu on the vacant post of I.A. Trained. It is not out of place to state here that as per resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989, the pay scale of I.A./I.Sc./B.A./B.Sc. untrained has been merged with matric trained pay scale.” 6. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 stating as under : – “4. That it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Incharge Headmaster in B.S.V. Middle School, Nivaranpur, Ranchi by order of Secretary, Managing Committee of the School. From perusal of the letter dated 03.01.1965 it is evident that the petitioner was allowed the salary as pay at Rs. 70/ + Govt. D.A.- Rs. 25 and Rs. 5 as Headmaster allowance. 5. That it is stated and submitted that as per the letter no. 2300 dt. 24.05.1966 issued by order of Secretary, Education Department prior to 24.05.1966 i.e. on dt. 03.01.1965 pay scale of the petitioner was 70-3-85-EB-4-105-2-115. Accordingly, he was allowed the pay of Rs. 70+25+5 (acting allowance of the Headmaster). From perusal of the said letter existing pay scale of the Headmaster i.e. pay scale of the Graduate Trained was 100-5-125-EB-4-145-3-175 which clearly shows that petitioner was posted as Acting Headmaster of the aforesaid Middle School nor he was ever granted the pay scale of Graduate trained.” 7. 70+25+5 (acting allowance of the Headmaster). From perusal of the said letter existing pay scale of the Headmaster i.e. pay scale of the Graduate Trained was 100-5-125-EB-4-145-3-175 which clearly shows that petitioner was posted as Acting Headmaster of the aforesaid Middle School nor he was ever granted the pay scale of Graduate trained.” 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the document which has been relied upon by the respondents filed as Annexure-A with the supplementary counter-affidavit would clearly disclose that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Headmaster and the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition has not been controverted by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of Graduate Trained pay-scale. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 9. A perusal of the documents on record discloses that the District Superintendent of Education vide letter dated 15.01.2002 has reported that before his suspension, the petitioner was getting Graduate Trained pay-scale. He has further recommended that the pay fixation for the rest of the service of the petitioner should be done on the basis of Graduate Trained pay-scale. I further find that neither in the counter-affidavit nor in the supplementary counter-affidavit, the respondents have denied that the petitioner was granted Graduate Trained pay-scale. I further find that the letter of appointment of the petitioner clearly discloses that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Headmaster and after his suspension was revoked under the compelling circumstance, he joined the post of Assistant Teacher. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents would fix the pay-scale of the petitioner in terms of the recommendation as contained in letter dated 15.01.2002 and grant retiral benefits, in accordance with law. Petition allowed.