Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 844 (JHR)

Damodar Indra Guru v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-23

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2015
Order : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2006 dated 29th September, 2008, whereby, the writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and, therefore, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. The claim of this appellant (original petitioner) to get the pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/ as first Assured Career Progression benefit and the claim of this appellant to get the pay scale of Rs.6,50010,500/ as second Assured Career Progression benefit has been denied and what is awarded by the Government at Rs.4,5007,000/ pay scale as first Assured Career Progression benefit and Rs.5,0008,000/ pay scale as second Assured Career Progression benefit to the Village Level Workers (VLWs) has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Against this order, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this appellant (original petitioner) was entitled to get promotion on the post of Block Agriculture Officer, which is a first promotional post having a pay scale of Rs.5,0008000/ and, therefore, if promotion is not given to this appellant, he is entitled to get the pay scale of promotional post i.e. Block Agriculture Officer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that thereafter second promotional post is SubDivisional Agriculture Officer having a pay scale of Rs.6,50010,500/ and if the second promotion is not given to this appellant, he is entitled to get the pay scale of second promotional post, whereas, instead of promotion the respondentGovernment has given Assured Career Progression benefit and has granted the pay scale of Rs.4,5007000/ and for second Assured Career Progression benefit the pay scale is given at Rs.5,0008,000/. It is in violation of the Government's resolution bearing no. 8299 dated 8th August, 2002, which is annexed at Annexure1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and also it is in violation of letter no. 1116 dated 17th July, 2003, which is annexed at Annexure6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. 1116 dated 17th July, 2003, which is annexed at Annexure6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2006 vide order dated 29th September, 2008.The circular issued by the State of Jharkhand dated 28th April, 2005, which is annexed at Annexure- A to the counter affidavit dated 16th April, 2007 to the memo of the writ petition, has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and as per the policy decision of the State of Jharkhand, in fact Village Level Workers are not entitled to get any promotion. Only exception is that if they have completed eight years of service and if they are science graduate, there is 25% reservation for the post of Block Agriculture Officer. In the said policy decision, it has been mentioned that those Village Level Workers who were appointed prior to 8th February, 1989, their basic pay scale will be treated at Rs.4,0006,000/ and if they are not given promotion after period of 12 years, they will entitle to get the benefit of first Assured Career Progression at the pay scale of Rs.4,5007,000/ and if they are not given second promotion then after further period of 12 years, they will entitle to get the benefit of second Assured Career Progression at the pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons: 4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) This appellant (original petitioner) had preferred W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2006 for getting higher pay scales as first Assured Career Progression benefit and also for second Assured Career Progression benefit. The appellant has demanded the pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/ towards first Assured Career Progression benefit, whereas, the respondent-Government has given the pay scale of Rs.4,5007,000/ towards first Assured Career Progression benefit. The appellant has further demanded the pay scale of Rs.6,50010,500/ towards second Assured Career Progression benefit, whereas, the respondent-Government has given the pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/ towards second Assured Career Progression benefit. (ii) This appellant (original petitioner) is working as a Village Level Worker. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is unable to point out since how long this appellant is working as Village Level Worker (VLW). (iii) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was entitled to get the promotion on the post of Block Agriculture Officer, which is having a pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/ and, therefore, if the promotion is not given within a period of 12 years, same pay scale will be given as a first Assured Career Progression benefit. This is a wrong notion in the mind of the appellant. This is not a law, at all. There is difference between pay scale of promotional post and first Assured Career Progression benefit. It ought to be kept in mind that always actual promotion is having higher pay scale, whereas, benefit of first Assured Career Progression may have lower pay scale. Promotion and first Assured Career Progression benefit are not synonymous of each other and, therefore, if promotion is not given, it cannot be said that the pay scale of promotional post should be given as first Assured Career Progression benefit. There is no such obligation on the part of the State that those employees who are not given promotion, then after 12 years or after a fixed period the same pay scale of promotional post should be given as a first Assured Career Progression benefit. Promotional post, normally, is having a higher pay scale because employee has to perform the duties of the promotional post. More responsibilities are always attached with the promotional post. Actual working of a promotional post is one thing, whereas, to remain as it is on lower post, for more than 12 years and to get first Assured Career Progression benefit is absolutely another thing. Those employees who are not promoted after 12 years, they have not to perform the duties of the promotional post. Actual working of a promotional post is one thing, whereas, to remain as it is on lower post, for more than 12 years and to get first Assured Career Progression benefit is absolutely another thing. Those employees who are not promoted after 12 years, they have not to perform the duties of the promotional post. They are not carrying any additional responsibilities on their shoulder. Sometimes, promotional post is not vacant as they are less than feeder cadre posts. Nonetheless, as 12 years' services have been over, some higher pay scale is being offered by the State, without giving any promotion and without performing any additional duties and without any additional responsibilities and, therefore, the Government is at liberty to give any other pay scale which may be higher to the pay scale of lower post, but, it may be lesser than the pay scale of the promotional post. In the facts of the present case, the pay scale of Village Level Worker (VLW) is Rs.4,0006,000/ and promotional post is Block Agriculture Officer having a pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/ and the pay scale of first Assured Career Progression benefit is Rs.4,5007,000/. This is always permissible by the State. There is no obligation on the part of the State that they must offer pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/. It is absolutely a wrong notion in the mind of the appellant that if the State is not giving promotion, at least pay scale of promotional post should be given as first Assured Career Progression benefit. (iv) Similarly, the demand of this appellant for second Assured Career Progression benefit is also not tenable at law. The second promotional post is SubDivisional Agriculture Officer having a pay scale of Rs.6,50010,500/. There is no obligation on the part of the State to give the same pay scale as second Assured Career Progression benefit, to those employees who are not given promotion after further 12 years. Whenever any employee is not given promotion in the interval of 12 years or 24 years, they are entitled to get the Assured Career Progression benefit and that pay scale normally will be lesser than the pay scale of promotional post because without any additional burden of the duties, the employees are getting higher pay scale. It all depends upon the State policy. They may give higher pay scale or they may give lower pay scale as Assured Career Progression benefit. It all depends upon the State policy. They may give higher pay scale or they may give lower pay scale as Assured Career Progression benefit. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not replacing better policy. The policy has already been defined by the State in its circular dated 28th April, 2005, which is annexed at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit filed by the State dated 16th April, 2007 in the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2006. We see no reason to alter this policy decision of the State. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the impugned order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2006 vide order dated 29th September, 2008. There being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.