Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 780 (JHR)

Dineshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary from 1996 onwards for the post of Steno-Typist-cum-Junior Accounts Clerk. The basis for making such prayer, according to the petitioner, is the direction passed earlier in WP(S) No. 2962 of 2001 (Annexure-1) dated 8.3.2002. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had earlier sought direction upon the respondents for payment of arrears of his salary from June 1996. Learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the rival submissions of the parties had passed following order :– "In view of the admitted facts, as aforesaid, I disposed of this writ application by passing the following order :– (i) the respondents shall immediately and forthwith and not later than 30 days from today, release the entire wages/salary payable to the petitioner for the post of Pump Operator in which he was initially appointed. (ii) the respondents shall, within the aforesaid period, consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Steno-Typist/Junior Accounts Clerk and shall pay the scale of Steno-Typist/Accounts Clerk at par with the other regular Steno-Typist/Accounts Clerk after deducting/adjusting the wages to which the petitioner was entitled for the post of Pump Operator." 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have, however, given salary for the post of Pump Operator for the period in question and not paid salary for the post of Steno-Typist-cum-Junior Accounts Clerk on which the post, the respondents have made the petitioner to work since 1996. On the basis of some documents brought on record by way of rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his appointment on the post of Junior Account Clerk was provisionally approved and he was also paid the scale of Junior Accounts Clerk from 1.10.1995 to May, 1996. The respondents have, however, failed to make further payment of the scale of Steno-Typist/Junior Accounts Clerk to the petitioner for the relevant period i.e. from 1996. 4. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. The respondents have, however, failed to make further payment of the scale of Steno-Typist/Junior Accounts Clerk to the petitioner for the relevant period i.e. from 1996. 4. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. They have taken a specific stand that in deference to the directions passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition being WP(S) No. 2962 of 2001, the respondents have regularized the services of the petitioner on the post of Typist in the scale of 4000-100-6000 as per office order contained in memo no. 1290 dated 9.7.2004. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Laghu Sichai Karmchari Sangh & Ors. rendered in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 18154 of 1999 vide judgment dated 30.10.2000, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the following directions were passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the regularization of such daily wages workers and the State was directed to take steps to constitute necessary committee and to implement the scheme depending upon the number of vacancies available from time to time. The relevant operative portion of the said judgment is quoted herein-below :- "We are of the view that the regularization of the writ petitioners should be done in accordance with the procedure indicated in the scheme dated 18.6.1993 and it should apply to the persons who satisfy all the conditions mentioned in the scheme. The direction given by the learned Single Judge that pending regularization of these daily-wage workers, they should get the minimum of the pay scale, is set aside. The State of Bihar will take steps to constitute necessary committee and will take expeditious steps to implement the scheme depending upon the number of vacancies available time to time." 5. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioner was considered alongwith other eligible persons by the duly constituted committee in deference to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above as also to the direction passed in the case of the petitioner vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This order of regularization on the higher post of Typist is not under challenge in the present writ petition. This order of regularization on the higher post of Typist is not under challenge in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner can legally claim salary for the higher post only from the date when he was substantively appointed to the said post. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Pump Operator in 1980 on daily-wages and he was granted regular scale of Rs. 375-480/- alongwith other daily-wages employees. It is his claim that he was adjusted on the post of Steno-Typist in the year, 1988 and he was made to work on the vacant post of Junior Accounts Clerk from 1996 in the Minor Irrigation Department, Division Gumla. However, the petitioner was not being paid the salary for the other post of Junior Accounts Clerk and, therefore, he had approached this Court in WP(S) No. 2962 of 2001 for the same relief. The respondents in that writ petition had taken stand that his initial appointment was that of, Pump Operator on daily-wages and proposal for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Steno-Typist or Junior Accounts Clerk was never approved by the competent authority. However, he was made to work on the vacant post of Steno-Typist/Junior Accounts Clerk provisionally. 7. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court passed the order, which has been quoted hereinabove. Perusal of the operative part of the aforesaid order shows that the respondents were directed to release the entire wages/ salary payable to the petitioner for the post of Pump Operator in which, he was initially appointed within a period of thirty (30) days. The second operative part of the said order deals with direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Steno-Typist/Junior Accounts Clerk and pay the scale of the said post at par with other such incumbent after deducting/adjusting the wages for which, the petitioner was entitled for post of Pump Operator. 8. Perusal of the operative part of the order as indicated hereinabove shows that the learned Single Judge did not hold that the petitioner has been promoted as a Steno- Typist-cum-Junior Accounts Clerk from any particular date and only a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 8. Perusal of the operative part of the order as indicated hereinabove shows that the learned Single Judge did not hold that the petitioner has been promoted as a Steno- Typist-cum-Junior Accounts Clerk from any particular date and only a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. The respondent in deference to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 18154 at 1999 vide judgment dated 30.10.2000 had constituted a committee for consideration of such cases and after consideration of other eligible candidates including the petitioner, he had been regularized on the post of Typist in the scale of 4000-100-6000 by the office order contained in memo no. 1290 dated 9.4.2004. This office order, however, has not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the benefits of the higher substantive post of Typist could only be payable from the date he has been regularized on the said post. It is not in dispute that since issuance of said office order dated 9.4.2004, the petitioner has been paid the higher scale of pay for the post of Typist. However, the period from when the petitioner was holding substantive post of Pump Operator, he is not legally entitled to claim the salary for the post of Steno-Typist-cum-Junior Accounts Clerk. If the petitioner is able to show that under the rules, he is entitled to get additional pay for discharging the duty of another post while working on his substantive post, he may have a claim separately. 9. However, in the present writ petition, no interference or direction is required in these circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.