Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 701 (JHR)

Surendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who has retired as High School Teacher on 31st January, 2004, has approached this Court in the present writ application with a prayer that the respondents should grant him the benefit of Senior Selection Grade Pay Scale of Rs. 22004400/ with effect from 1st April, 1994 and as such benefit should also be passed to his pensionary dues. 3. Certain material facts of the petitioner's case which are relevant for appreciating the grievance raised herein are being noticed hereunder: He was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science Graduate) in K.B. High School, Itkhori, Chatra on 16th July, 1965. He completed his B.Ed. Training in 1971 from Bhagalpur University and was granted Graduate Training scale with effect from 26th December, 1971 by the order of District Education Officer, Hazaribagh dated 7th March, 1973. He was granted First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1st April, 1981 vide Annexure2 dated 8th July, 1987. In terms of Finance Department vide Resolution no. 6022 dated 18th December, 1989, the benefit of selection grade scale in revised pay was granted to the teachers, who were in service of the school on 1st January, 1986. Petitioner therefore had made a claim that after completion of 12 years from 1st April, 1981 i.e. grant of First Time Bound Promotion, his case became eligible for grant of Senior Selection Grade with effect from 1st April, 1994, at least, though he was eligible from 1st April, 1993. 4. Petitioner's case is that one Sri Rajendra Prasad, who was also an Assistant Teacher in the High School, came before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3950 of 2004 with a prayer to grant him the benefit of Senior Selection Scale and revision in pensionary benefits with effect from 1st April, 1993, which after due consideration was allowed by learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12th April, 2012 (Annexure6). The case of the petitioner is similar to the said case. Therefore, such relief should also be granted to him. Respondents have filed more than one affidavit. They have also quoted the relevant Rules/Notification, one of which is of 25th April, 1994 of Secondary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar at Annexure A on the subject of grant of selection and Senior Selection Grade. Therefore, such relief should also be granted to him. Respondents have filed more than one affidavit. They have also quoted the relevant Rules/Notification, one of which is of 25th April, 1994 of Secondary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar at Annexure A on the subject of grant of selection and Senior Selection Grade. Reliance has been placed by both the parties on the said circular, more specifically Clauses 3 and 5. Clause 3 apparently indicates that selection scale would be given to such teachers, who are in the senior scale of 12 years. Clause 5 indicates that for grant of Senior Selection Scale the teachers should have completed 18 years of service till the date when the said scheme was implemented i.e. 1986. As per the stand of the respondents also in their counter affidavit if an incumbent had completed 18 years of service by that date he was not required to have Post Graduate Qualification. 6. Though both the parties have relied upon the aforesaid circular, but respondents have contested the petitioner's claim on the ground that he was not a Post Graduate as of 1986 and that after 1992 calculation of 20% vacancies of teachers were not earmarked which was necessary requirement in respective division for grant of such Senior Selection Grade. Apart from that their stand is to the effect that petitioner's name is at serial no. 27 in the gradation list where person at serial no. 1 also has not been given promotion. However, prima facie it appears that in the matter of grant of financial upgradation like selection grade, the question whether a person has been granted promotion from a gradation list or not is not relevant for deciding the said issue. Financial upgradation are intended to provide higher scale of pay or grade if regular promotion are not granted to remove stagnation in service. As would appear in the instant case the petitioner claims to have entered service in 1965 and by the year 1986 he had completed more than 18 years of service. If that be so he can be considered under the circular of Finance Department of 18th December, 1989. Apart from that if the petitioner was granted First Time Bound Promotion or Selection Grade from 1.4.1981 on completion of 12 years of service, the criteria at Clause 3 of circular 1994, Annexure A also seems to have been satisfied. If that be so he can be considered under the circular of Finance Department of 18th December, 1989. Apart from that if the petitioner was granted First Time Bound Promotion or Selection Grade from 1.4.1981 on completion of 12 years of service, the criteria at Clause 3 of circular 1994, Annexure A also seems to have been satisfied. Moreover, it appears that the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad was in seisin of similar grievance raised by the said petitioner who had been shown as being granted Senior Selection Grade from 1st April, 1993 but had not been given the actual monetary benefits arising thereof on a conception of respondents relating to various circulars of the department relating to grant of Senior Selection Grade. One of the Rules relied upon by the respondents appears to be in respect of Elementary School taken over by the Government which has been distinguished by learned Single Judge. 7. It therefore appears that the various relevant aspects of the matter for taking appropriate decision in the matter have perhaps not been taken into account while coming out with their stand in the counter affidavit by the respondents. 8. In such circumstances, due consideration of the claim of the petitioner is required to be accorded by the concerned authority to whom the matter is remanded. Therefore, let the respondent no. 2, Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand take an informed decision in the matter also keeping into account the observations made hereinabove by this Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with a detailed representation duly supported with all necessary facts, documents, judgments and pleadings of the present writ application. Dependent upon such decision, if the claim of the petitioner is found to be admissible, the same be released in favour of the petitioner with consequential benefit in his pensionary dues as well thereafter. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.