Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1900 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Bithika Paramanik

2017-11-07

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2017
ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. Nos. 3113 and 2293 of 2017 Both the aforesaid interlocutory applications have been preferred for condonation of delay of 266 and 237 days. 2. Having heard the counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in these interlocutory applications, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay. 'We, therefore, condone the delay. 3. I.A. Nos. 3113 and 2293 of 2017 are allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. Nos. 202 and 127 of 2017 4. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 969 of 2006 (Reported in 2016(4) JLJR 436 .) and W.P.(S) No. 6288 of 2005 (Reported in 2016(4) JLJR 436 .) "dated 15.6.2016. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prayer of the respondents in the writ petitions, were for getting the revision in the pay scale, in pursuance of the Resolution of the Government dated 18th December, 1989. The said Resolution was issued by the Finance Department of the erstwhile State of Bihar and the same is annexed at Annexure-1. 6. Here, in these Letters Patent Appeals, we are concerned with Clause No. 13(iii) of resolution of Government dated 18th December, 1989 which reads as under: "(iii) Those teachers who have received promotion into Junior Selection grade or first time bound promotion after 1st January, 1956 but before 1st March, 1989 shall be given the benefit of promotion for the purpose of fixation of their pay in the Revised scale only with effect from the date they have received promotion, or date on which they complete 12 years of service whichever is later. (iv) .................................................... (v) ................................................... . (vi) ...................................................... (vii) ................................................... (Emphasis supplied) 7. It further appears from the facts of the case that the respondents (original petitioners) were working as Assistant Teachers and from the date of their initial appointment which is running from 1968 till 1977, they all have got first time bound promotion running from 1986-87. 8. Thus, looking to the aforesaid Clause 13(iii), all the respondents are entitled to the revision in pay scale as per Finance Department Resolution dated 18.12.1989. 8. Thus, looking to the aforesaid Clause 13(iii), all the respondents are entitled to the revision in pay scale as per Finance Department Resolution dated 18.12.1989. Looking to the aforesaid Clause 13(iii) of the Resolution passed by the Government, there is no ambiguity nor there is any equivocalness nor there are any chance of two types of interpretation. The only interpretation is that those who are getting first time bound promotion within the period running from 1st January, 1986 to March, 1989, they all are entitled to the revision in the pay scale. It is submitted by counsels for both the sides that the first time bound promotion obtained by all the petitioners is falling within the aforesaid time limit i.e. after 1st January, 1986 but prior to 1st March, 1989 and hence all the original petitioners are entitled to the revision in the pay scale which is Rs.1400-2600/- from the unrevised pay scale of Rs.680-965/-. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing W.P.(S) No. 969 of 2006 and W.P.(S) No. 6288 of 2005 dated 15.6.2016. Hence, there is no substance in these Letters Patent Appeals and the same are therefore dismissed. 9. It ought to be kept in mind by the State of Jharkhand especially by the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand that the National Litigation Policy ought to have been followed by the State of Jharkhand more particularly when the National Litigation Policy has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand and now the State of Jharkhand has also its own State Litigation Policy which prescribes that if the earlier decision has already been rendered. there is no justifiable reason for the State to prefer the Letters Patent Appeal and instead of preferring Letters Patent Appeal the-judgment should have been followed which has been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 21695 of 2010 arising out of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 136 of 2009 vide judgment dated 29th March, 2010. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the first decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 656 of 2003 vide judgment dated 11th July, 2008 reported in 2008(3) JLJR 282 . 10. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the first decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 656 of 2003 vide judgment dated 11th July, 2008 reported in 2008(3) JLJR 282 . 10. If the high ranking administrative officers would have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petitions then perhaps this type of litigation by the State would have been avoided. State Litigation Policy is not an ornamental charter. It ought to have been followed by the State itself. 11. A copy of this, order will be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand initially by Fax and thereafter by registered post as well as to the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand. In the Literacy department ignorance (which is a form of pollution) of State Litigation Policy should be removed forthwith. 12. A copy of this order will also be sent to the Advocate General, State of Jharkhand who is also a Chairman of the State Empowered Committee constituted under the State Litigation Policy, initially by Fax and thereafter by registered post. 13. In view of the final order passed in these Letters Patent Appeals, I.A. Nos. 3114 and 2294 of 2017 are hereby disposed of.