Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1219 (JHR)

Veer Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-08-04

H.C.MISHRA

body2016
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RIADA'). 2. The petitioner was appointed as Development Officer in RIADA on 24.9.1979 in the pay scale of Rs.1060-1582/-. The petitioner claimed parity with the post of Deputy Director of Industries, in the Government of Jharkhand, as the post of the Development Officer in RIADA and the post of Deputy Director of Industries in the Government of Jharkhand were carrying the same pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/-at one point of time. The Pay Anomaly Committee constituted pursuant to the implementation of the 5th Pay Revision, recommended the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000/-to the post of Deputy Director of Industries, which was also implemented. The petitioner, claiming that the post being held by him was equivalent to the post of Deputy Director of Industries, filed writ application being W.P.S. No.6068 of 2002 in this Court claiming the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000/-as was made applicable to the post of Deputy Director of Industries in the Government of Jharkhand. In the said writ application the petitioner also claimed the benefits 5th Pay Revision Committee to be implemented with effect from 1.4.1997, in view of minutes of the 60th Board meeting of RIADA, held on 22.11.1999, which have been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ application. The said W.P.S. No.6068 of 2002 was allowed by order dated 12.9.2007 as contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application. 3. Aggrieved by the said decision, the RIADA moved before this Court in LPA No.351 of 2007 which was allowed in part by the Judgment dated 08th August 2014, as contained in Annexure-11 to this writ application, setting aside the order dated 12.09.2007 passed in W.P(S) No.6068 of 2002. The petitioner's claim of parity with the post of the Deputy Director of Industries was rejected by the LPA Court holding as follows :- “14. ------------. The respondent-petitioner has not produced any document to show that the post of Development Officer in RIADA and the Deputy Director in the Industries Department is equivalent post. The respondent-petitioner has admitted that he was appointed as Development Officer in 1979 in terms of the advertisement issued by the RIADA. The appellant has categorically stated that the Deputy Director, Industries is recruited through the Public Service Commission. The respondent-petitioner has admitted that he was appointed as Development Officer in 1979 in terms of the advertisement issued by the RIADA. The appellant has categorically stated that the Deputy Director, Industries is recruited through the Public Service Commission. It is evident that the procedure for recruitment on these two posts are entirely different and in the absence of any Resolution, Rules or Provisions of Act that the Development Officer is holding equivalent post to the Deputy Director the contention of the respondent-petitioner cannot be accepted.” 4. However, the LPA Court noted that the matter of implementing the benefits of the 5th Pay Revision in the RIADA with effect from 1.4.1997 in terms of the resolution of 60th Board meeting, was also sent to the Government and the State Government had not taken any decision upon that. Accordingly, the State Government i.e., the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand and the Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand were directed to take necessary decision in accordance with law and the relevant rules with respect to the revision of pay to the petitioner. With these directions, the LPA filed by the RIADA was allowed in part. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in LPA No. 351 of 2007, a reasoned order has been passed by the respondent No.2, the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, wherein also, it has been held that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the post of Deputy Director of Industries. As regards the implementation of the benefits of 5th Pay Revision Committee (wrongly mentioned as 6th Pay Revision Committee in the impugned order), the Secretary, Department of Industries has held that the benefits of the Pay Revision was given to the employees of RIADA with effect from 1.4.2003, whereas the petitioner had retired from service on 28.2.2001 itself, and accordingly, the benefits of the 5th Pay Revision was not applicable to the petitioner. As such, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2, by order as contained in Memo No.3478 dated 30.12.2014, which has been brought on record as Annexure-12 to the writ application. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has challenged this order passed by the respondent No.2, in the present writ application. 6. As such, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2, by order as contained in Memo No.3478 dated 30.12.2014, which has been brought on record as Annexure-12 to the writ application. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has challenged this order passed by the respondent No.2, in the present writ application. 6. In this writ application the petitioner has again claimed parity with the post of Deputy Director of Industries Department, but this prayer of this petitioner cannot be entertained again, in view of the findings given by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.351 of 2007. 7. As regards the prayer that the benefits of 5th Pay Revision be implemented in favour of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1997, even the High Court in LPA No. 351 of 2007 has taken note of the fact that the benefits of 5th Pay Revision were implemented in favour of the employees of RIADA only with effect from 1.4.2003, pursuant to the resolution of 67th meeting of the Board of RIADA. It also finds mentioned in the said resolution, that the resolution of 60th Board Meeting for giving the benefits of 5th Pay Revision to the employees of RIADA with effect from 1.4.1997, was pending before the State Government. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since in the 67th meeting of the Board of RIADA, the resolution was taken for implementing the benefits of the 5th Pay Revision to its employees with effect from 1.4.1997, the benefits thereof should be given to the petitioner also with effect from 1.4.1997 itself. However, it is an admitted fact that no decision has yet been taken upon the said resolution by the State Government and pursuant to the resolution of 67th meeting of the Board of RIADA, it was decided to implement the benefits of 5th pay revision to its employees with effect from 01.04.2003 only. 9. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the RIADA have opposed the prayer and it is submitted that since the benefits of the 5th Pay Revision have been accorded to the employees of RIADA only with effect from 1.4.2003, i.e., after the retirement of the petitioner, the same benefits cannot be made available to the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the RIADA have opposed the prayer and it is submitted that since the benefits of the 5th Pay Revision have been accorded to the employees of RIADA only with effect from 1.4.2003, i.e., after the retirement of the petitioner, the same benefits cannot be made available to the petitioner. 10. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that pursuant to the direction passed by this Court in LPA No.351 of 2007, a reasoned order has been passed by the respondent No.2, the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi by order dated 30.12.2014 as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application. This order clearly shows that the benefits of 5th pay Revision have been implemented with respect to the employees of RIADA only with effect from 01.04.2003 and not from 01.04.1997. The petitioner has retired from service on 28.02.2001 itself and accordingly, the said benefits could not be made available to the petitioner. I do not see any illegality in the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the respondent No.2, as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application, worth any interference in the writ jurisdiction. 11. There is no merit in this application and the same is hereby, dismissed. 12. However, it goes without saying that in the event the State Government takes the decision to implement the benefits of 5th Pay Revision to the employees of RIADA with effect from 01.04.1997, the benefits thereof shall be given to the petitioner also.