Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 91 (JHR)

Sanjukta Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2013-01-16

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Order I.A. No. 2694 of 2012 The legal heirs of the deceased petitioner no. 3 have sought substitution in his place as petitioner no. 3, has died on 26.4.2009. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the same. 3. In that view of the matter, the applicants' named at paragraph-2 of the instant interlocutory application are permitted to be substituted in place of the deceased petitioner no. 3 for which necessary correction should be carried out in the main writ petition by the learned counsel for the applicants within the course of the day in red ink. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2694 of 2012 stands disposed of. W.P. (S) No. 3781 of 2006 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. These petitioners have come before this Court for direction upon the respondent to provide the due of I.A. Trained scale w.e.f. 1.4.1980 and B.A. trained scale w.e.f. 1.4.1985 claiming that they fulfill all the criteria required for the same and similarly situated persons have been granted the said benefits as per Annexure-3. It is further submitted that these petitioners have retired in the year 2004 and 2005 while working as B.A. Trained/Graduate Trained Teachers. Respondents have, however, not granted the same despite their representations were made before them. 7. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavits. It appears that the respondent no.3 the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar has taken a stand that for preparation of gradation and seniority list by the Department, the teachers have been asked to apply in prescribed form and these petitioners have also been informed by the respondent no. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar to submit the form to enable the Establishment Committee to take appropriate decision in the matter. It is stated that the petitioners have responded to the same and the matter will be placed before the Establishment Committee to decide each case on merits in the meeting. As such, this writ petition is premature. 8. From these facts and statements made on behalf of the respondents, it is, thus, apparent that respondents are themselves taking steps for consideration and redressal of the grievances of such teachers including the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are directed to approach before the respondent no. As such, this writ petition is premature. 8. From these facts and statements made on behalf of the respondents, it is, thus, apparent that respondents are themselves taking steps for consideration and redressal of the grievances of such teachers including the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are directed to approach before the respondent no. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar with a fresh representation/application in the prescribed form giving all the facts and necessary details within a period of three weeks, if not already made. In case, such representation is made before the respondent no. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, he shall consider the same in accordance with law and rules as also instruction prevalent in the Department and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, which shall also be communicated to 'the petitioners. 9. In cage petitioners claim is found to be genuine and legally admissible the consequential benefits arising out of such grant of scale, should be paid to them or their illegal heirs within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.