Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1062 (JHR)

Sheo Jag Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-18

H.C.MISHRA

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent State as also learned counsel for the Accountant General. 2. The petitioner was earlier appointed as Epidemic Medical Officer (a non-gazetted Post), and he retired as Medical Officer, Department of Surgery, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad in the year, 2010. In course of his service, by notification No. 123(4) dated 9.6.2005, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, the petitioner was given the benefit of first A.C.P. with effect from 9.8.1999 in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/-. Since the other benefits were not given, the petitioner moved before this court in W.P.(S) No. 5390 of 2010, which was disposed of by order dated 6th January, 2012, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, directing the respondents concerned to treat the writ application of the petitioner as representation and decide the claims of the petitioner by passing a detailed and speaking order in accordance with law. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 6th January, 2012, passed by this Court, a detailed order has been passed vide Memo No. 09 (9) dated 4.4.2012, by the respondent No. 4, the Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, wherein it has been held that the petitioner, who had joined on a non-gazetted post had also retired from the same nature of post, and accordingly, he was required to pass the Accounts examination, as prescribed under Rule 157 of the Board Miscellaneous Rules, 1958. It was also stated that the petitioner had not passed any other departmental examination, except the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, and accordingly, he was not entitled to the benefits of first A.C.P. from 9.8.1999, and accordingly, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. This order was passed after giving a hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point submitting that Rule 157 of the Board Miscellaneous Rules is not applicable to the petitioner, as it relates to passing of the examination in Accounts, only by the Ministerial officers of the Muffasil Departments. This order was passed after giving a hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point submitting that Rule 157 of the Board Miscellaneous Rules is not applicable to the petitioner, as it relates to passing of the examination in Accounts, only by the Ministerial officers of the Muffasil Departments. Learned counsel has submitted that the Ministerial officers of the Muffasil Department are the Clerks and Assistants, and petitioner being a Medical Officer, was not the Ministerial Staff, and therefore, Rule 157 of the Board Miscellaneous Rules did not apply to the petitioner, and accordingly, the representation of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the respondent No. 4. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out that Rule-157, as contained in Chapter-VIII of the Board Miscellaneous Rules, relates to the ministerial and non-gazetted officers. Learned counsel has, accordingly, submitted that in this chapter, there is no special provision relating to the non-gazetted officers, and accordingly, this chapter contains composite provision for all the ministerial and non-gazetted officers. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that not only the Accounts examination, rather the petitioner had not passed any other departmental examination, and accordingly, as per the scheme for A.C.P., petitioner was not entitled to the first A.C.P. with effect from 9.8.1999. Learned counsel has also referred to Para-22 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, in which, it is stated that though the benefit of first A.C.P. was wrongly granted to the petitioner, the same has not been withdrawn till date as the petitioner has now retired from service. 6. Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the records, I find that pursuant to the order dated 6th of January, 2012, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5390 of 2010, by this Court, the petitioner was given a personal hearing by the respondent No. 4 and by a detailed order, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected, mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not passed any departmental examination, except the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, as required under the A.C.P. Scheme. In Para-22 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, it is however, stated that though the A.C.P. was wrongly granted to the petitioner, but the same has not been withdrawn as yet in view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired. 7. In view of the stand taken by the State Government in its counter-affidavit, suffice would be directed that since the petitioner has been given the benefit of first A.C.P, by the notification issued on 9.6.2005 itself, which has not been withdrawn till date, as the petitioner has retired from service, the same shall be continued to him and the monetary benefit thereof shall be paid to the petitioner. Otherwise, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order, as contained in Memo No. 09 (9) dated 4.4.2012, passed by the respondent No. 4, the Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, rejecting the other claims of the petitioner. 8. This application is accordingly, disposed of with the direction as above. Application disposed of.