Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 493 (JHR)

Surendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-10

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The three petitioners have sought quashing of the office order contained in Memo No. 3589 dated 5.12.2011, Annexure-7 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by which the claim of the petitioners for B.Sc trained scale of Rs. 1640 2900 has been rejected and a decision has also been taken to recover the excess amount paid to them. Petitioners have also sought quashing of letter contained in Memo No.3 dated 2.1.2012 , Annexure-8 asking them to appear before the respondent No.4 District Superintendent of Education, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur with their service book and pay fixation slip. They have also sought directions for payment of salary from October, 2011 claiming that they have been discharging their duties. 3. These petitioners claimed to have been validly and legally appointed against the sanctioned vacant post of B.Sc. untrained teacher in the prescribed pay scale of Rs. 680-965 in the Government Nationalized School by office order dated 21.2.1983. According to them they acquired the teachers training qualification on 25.08.1992, 24.6.1992 and 23.8.1992 respectively and were granted B.Sc. trained scale of Rs. 1640-2900 being the revised pay scale of Rs. 850-1360/-by the decision of the Establishment Committee contained in office order dated 2.5.1994, Annexure-4. 4. The writ petitioners were however, shocked when the aforesaid scale was reduced by respondent No.4-District Superintendent of Education, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur through a Memo dated 1.09.1999, Annexure-5. These petitioners along with several others challenged the said order dated 1.09.1999 in writ petition i.e CWJC No. 2990 of 1999( R) which was decided along with other analogous cases. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out by referring to Annexure-7 that the said reasoned order has been passed by respondent No.4-District Superintendent of Education, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur upon directions passed by the Jharkhand High Court in the said writ petitions including that of the petitioners i.e. CWJC No. 2990 of 1999(R). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the same impugned order dated 5.12.2011 which upheld the earlier decision to reduce the petitioners’ B.Sc. trained scale was challenged by the other batch of aggrieved writ petitioners who were parties in CWJC No. 2974 of 1999(R). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the same impugned order dated 5.12.2011 which upheld the earlier decision to reduce the petitioners’ B.Sc. trained scale was challenged by the other batch of aggrieved writ petitioners who were parties in CWJC No. 2974 of 1999(R). The said writ petitions W.P.(S) No. 994 of 2012 with W.P.(S) No. 996 of 2012 challenging the impugned order dated 5.12.2011 were allowed on 14.02.2013 by learned Single Judge of this court which is annexed as Annexure-11 to the I.A. No. 2556 of 2013 filed by the present petitioners in the instant case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Arbind Bhushan Dey & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2009 (1) JLJR 338 found that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and the petitioners therein are entitled to the graduate trained science teachers pay scale of Rs. 16402900 as they had also acquired teachers training sometime in the year 1989 after their appointment. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of these petitioners are identical to the said petitioners whose cases have already been decided in the aforesaid writ petitions on 14.2.2013 and therefore, these petitioners also deserve similar treatment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent –State has submitted on the basis of counter-affidavit filed earlier that the petitioners were originally appointed on the sanctioned post of I.Sc. Untrained in the relevant years and their pay fixation was wrongly made in the B.Sc/B.A. trained scale i.e. Rs.1640-2900. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the instant judgment relied upon by the petitioners, Annexure-11 have been passed on 14.2.2013 after filing of the counter affidavit in the instant case i.e on 22.02.2012. 9. Having heard learned counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances indicated hereinabove, it appears that by common impugned order, cases of several persons including the present petitioners were decided, justifying the earlier decision of the respondents to cancel the B.Sc trained scale granted to such persons. The said decision itself was taken in view of the directions passed in the earlier round of litigations in the case of the petitioners and others vide common judgment dated 30.4.2009, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The said decision itself was taken in view of the directions passed in the earlier round of litigations in the case of the petitioners and others vide common judgment dated 30.4.2009, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The present petitioners were petitioners in CWJC No. 2990/1999 (R) while the petitioners in the judgment rendered on 14.2.2013, in WP(S) 994/2012 and WP(S) 996/2012 Annexure-11 were petitioners in CWJC No. 2974/1999(R) 10. In such circumstances, the respondents are required to once again decide the matter in the light of the judgment delivered on 14.2.2013 in the case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors in W.P.(S) No. 994/12, and analogous case Annexure-11 as the same and the common impugned order dated 5.12.2011, Annexure-7 to the present writ petition has been quashed in the said case. In the facts and circumstances therefore, impugned order dated 5.12.2011 is quashed. The respondent No.4-District Superintendent of Education, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after taking into account all attended facts and if it is found that there are no distinguishing features in present case of the petitioners from that of the case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava (Supra) decided on 14.02.2013 Annexure-11, the petitioners would be given the benefit of the B.Sc Trained Scale like that of the said persons. 11. The petitioners have also alleged that they were not being paid salary from October, 2011. The respondents would see that if the petitioners have been discharging their duties on their respective posts in the department, the admissible salary of the petitioners be released as well. Let, a decision as aforesaid be taken within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 12. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.