Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 185 (JHR)

Surendra Pal Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-29

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is serving in the capacity of Assistant as Class-III employee in the Judgeship of Gumla, having been appointed on 10th October, 1977 on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Civil Court, Ranchi. On completion of 10 years of his service, he was granted First Time Bound promotion and given the scale of Junior Selection Grade with effect from 2nd December 1987 vide office order no. 10 dated 18th February, 1988 (Annexure1) to the writ application. His pay fixation was made in the scale of Rs. 580-860/-. The petitioner claims to have passed the departmental exam in the first attempt in the year 1997 held in Gumla Judgeship. Thereafter, the petitioner was also granted the benefits of First A.C.P. with effect from 9.8.1999 and subsequently Second A.C.P. with effect from 2nd December, 2001 on completion of 12 and 24 years of service in terms of the Finance Department's Resolution dated 14-08-2002 vide Order No. 91 dated 20th December, 2007 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Gumla. During the process of verification of the service book of the petitioner at the time of grant of revised pay scale under 6th Pay Revision as also in the matter of grant of benefits of A.C.P. an objection was made vide Annexure 5 dated 3rd May, 2008 issued by the District Accounts Officer, Gumla, that the benefit of First Time Bound Promotion/Junior Selection Grade granted to the petitioner on 2nd December, 1988 without passing the departmental exam, was not in accordance with the Circular and Rule prevalent and therefore the same should be cancelled and the excess payment paid on that account should be recovered. 3. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court challenging the said communication dated 3rd May, 2008 (Annexure5) issued by the District Accounts Officer, Gumla. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even earlier the matter was sent before the District Accounts Officer in the year 2003 for verification of the pay fixation along with service book, but no such objection was made as per Annexure2 letter dated 30th April, 2003, issued by the Accounts Section of the Gumla Collectorate. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even earlier the matter was sent before the District Accounts Officer in the year 2003 for verification of the pay fixation along with service book, but no such objection was made as per Annexure2 letter dated 30th April, 2003, issued by the Accounts Section of the Gumla Collectorate. It is submitted that the affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar, Gumla Judgeship categorically states that the First Time Bound promotion was granted to the petitioner in view of the resolution dated 19th February, 1986, annexed as Annexure8 to the petitioner's rejoinder, whereunder, it is stated that if such time bound promotion is granted to an employee in special circumstances, he was required to pass the departmental exam to be held in future at least 2 successive attempts, failing which the benefit given to him could be withdrawn and he would be reverted to the original basic grade. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos. 4 & 5 representing the judgeship of Gumla have not disputed the contention of the petitioner made at paragraph20 that in the very first attempt he passed the departmental exam held in the year 1997 in the Gumla Judgeship. In such circumstances, in the year 2008, such an objection raised by the District Accounts Officer is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on fact and it would also prove unjust and arbitrary to withdraw the benefit granted to him 20 years back and also to recover the amount paid to him on that account. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents-State represents both the District Accounts Officer as well as respondent nos. 4 & 5 being the District & Sessions Judge, Gumla and Judge-in Charge (Registrar), Civil Court, Gumla. Learned counsel for the Respondents-State has relied upon the circular of 1992 under which such Time Bound Promotion could not have been granted without passing the departmental exam to an employee like the petitioner. He has also relied upon the Civil Court's Rules, 1962, under which a clerk is to be promoted to the junior selection grade only upon passing of the examination of Civil Court and Criminal Court Rules; Accountancy; Knowledge of Drafting of Correspondences and Order-sheet and Practice and Procedure. 5. He has also relied upon the Civil Court's Rules, 1962, under which a clerk is to be promoted to the junior selection grade only upon passing of the examination of Civil Court and Criminal Court Rules; Accountancy; Knowledge of Drafting of Correspondences and Order-sheet and Practice and Procedure. 5. It is submitted that at the time of verification of the petitioner's service record when the benefits of 6th Pay Revision and A.C.P were to be affirmed, the said anomaly was detected and has rightly been rectified by the District Accounts Officer. Learned counsel for the Respondents-State however is at a loss to reconcile the affidavits filed on behalf of the District Accounts Officers to that of the Registrar, Civil Court, Gumla. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record including circulars relied upon by the parties, from the facts which have been borne on record and have been narrated in the earlier part of this judgment, it is evident that the petitioner, who was appointed on 10th October, 1977 on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Judgeship of Ranchi on completion of 10 years of his service, got the benefit of First Time Bound Promotion/ Junior Selection Grade by conscious order issued by the office of District & Sessions Judge, Gumla Annexure-1, whereunder other persons were also granted the similar benefit. The petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs. 580860/- the relevant point of time as per the office order no. 12 dated 1st March, 1988. He continued to draw the said scale and admittedly passed the departmental exam which was held for the first time in the judgeship of Gumla in the year 1997. From perusal of circular dated 19th February 1986, it appears that in view of the demands raised by the Assistants of the secretariat and other related offices, a decision was taken to grant the benefit to eligible persons of such Junior Selection Grade upon completion of 10 years of service with a condition that they were required to pass the departmental exam in the next two successive exams held, failing which they were to be reverted to the basic scale. 7. 7. In the instant case, as aforesaid the petitioner passed the said exam in 1997 and thereafter the case of the petitioner along with others were also considered and granted benefits of First A.C.P with effect from 9th August, 1999 and Second A.C.P with effect from 2nd December 2002 vide order no. 41 dated 28th March, 2007, issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Gumla contained at Annexure3 in the respective scales of Rs. 5000-8000/- and Rs. 5500-9000/-. As would appear, during the course of verification of the petitioner's service book, the Accounts Office of the Gumla secretariat never raised such an objection as is evident from Annexure2 dated 30th April, 2003 and the same has been raised by way of Annexure5 for the first time in the year 2008. It is evident that after 20 years of grant of such scale by a decision taken by the competent authority, the same is sought to be revoked on the objection of the District Accounts Officer. The lacuna which may have remained at the time of grant of such Junior Selection Grade because petitioner had not passed the departmental exam also appears to have been taken care of, as he himself passed it in the first attempt in 1997 and also in view of the circular of 1986 referred to hereinabove. In these circumstances, the cancellation of the Junior Selection Grade granted to the petitioner in the year 1988 on the objection raised by the District Accounts Officer seems to be wholly unnecessary and also unreasonable. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said communication so far as it concerns the petitioner is accordingly quashed. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.