Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2046 (JHR)

Meble Snehlata Kujur v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-28

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Sr. SC-I for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing entry dated 26.8.2016, made in the Service Book of the petitioner, whereby it has been ordered by the Headmistress, Project Girls' High School, Oppa, Ranchi to recover Rs. 89,334/- in four equal installments as the same has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and also against the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by the Hon'ble High Court. Further prayer has been made for refund of the amount deducted by the respondents pursuant to entry dated 26.8.2016 made in the service book with penal interest, as the same has been done without any fault on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to fix the pay-scale of the petitioner from her initial date of appointment in view of several judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as the decision passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2147 of 1993(R). 2. The facts as derived from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 16.1.1985 as Assistant Teacher in the Project Girls High School, Bhamo (Gumla). Thereafter, vide letter No. 182 dated 25.3.1982, issued by the State of Bihar, the school, where the petitioner was working, was undertaken by the Government and the name of the said school appeared at Sr. No. 78 and subsequently, in light of letter No. 405 dated 19.7.1986 issued by the Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, the District Education Officer, Gumla vide its letter Nos. 1690-93 dated 1.0.1986 fixed the pay-scale-of the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers at Rs. 785-25-1135. Thereafter, vide wireless message dated 14.4.1987, it was ordered that all the teachers of those project schools which were taken over by the Government would get regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1986 only. It has further been contended that in the year 1994, the services of the petitioner was transferred to Project Girls High School, Oppa, Ranchi and the petitioner gave her joining in the said school and is presently working as Assistant Teacher in the above school. It has further been contended that in the year 1994, the services of the petitioner was transferred to Project Girls High School, Oppa, Ranchi and the petitioner gave her joining in the said school and is presently working as Assistant Teacher in the above school. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.4.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1993, the Hon'ble Patna High Court pleased to hold that all the teaching and non-teaching staff of project school should also get the same benefit of getting regular pay-scale from their initial date of recruitment. After the said order, the similarly situated persons moved before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(S). No. 1589 of 2005, which was disposed of on 29.7.2009 with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education to consider the claims of the petitioners in light of earlier decision taken on similar claims of other teachers. It is further stated that vide office order dated 10.1.2015, it was decided that teachers appointed in Project Girls High School, Oppa shall be entitled to the benefit of pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment which would be granted to them after due verification of their appointment and educational qualification. As the petitioner was similarly situated, she was granted the benefits from her initial date of appointment i.e. from 17.1.1985 and the same was recorded in her service book and further fixation of pay from initial date of appointment had been done by the competent authority and approved by the District Accounts Officer and hence, there is no manipulation or fraud committed by the petitioner. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that to her utter shock and surprise, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the benefits of pay-scale granted to the petitioner from her initial date of appointment was withdrawn and an order of recovery was passed and the same has already been recovered. It is further stated that the only reason assigned for denial of her claim is that the petitioner was not a party to the writ application, being C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1993(R). The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a detailed representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi giving all necessary details, but till date no decision has been taken by the respondents on her pending representation. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a detailed representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi giving all necessary details, but till date no decision has been taken by the respondents on her pending representation. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that action of the respondent-authorities is in violation of principles of natural justice as without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing, the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in reducing the pay-scale of the petitioner is bad in law in view of order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1993(R), pursuant to which the pay of the petitioner was fixed. The action of the respondents in making entries in the service and ordering recovery therein is bad in law as well as on fact and the respondents cannot make such an adverse entry in the service book of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also, without issuing any order to that effect. Learned counsel also submits that the action of the respondents in passing an order of recovery from the petitioner is also bad in the eyes of law as well as on facts in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Hon'ble High Courts. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mrs. Nilam Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents draws attention of the Court towards paras-14 and 15 of the counter-affidavit and submits that the petitioner was not a party in C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1993(R) and order of Director, Secondary Education dated 4.12.2014 is applicable for the petitioner of that case only and since the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed in light of order of Director, Secondary Education, hence, the Principal Incharge of the School was directed to recover the excess amount paid to the present petitioner as such, there is no illegality in the order of recovery and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is settled principle of law and has been held in catena of decision that once a ratio has been decided by the Hon'ble Court, it is not the requirement of law that each and every candidate should knock the door of the Hon'ble Court for getting the relief. The respondents themselves considering the ratio and law laid down should pass an effective order covering all the similarly situated persons. In CWJC No. 3137 of 1993(R), Narendra Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Bihar and in CWJC No. 3147 of 1993(R), Kamla Lakra & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, orders were passed vide order dated 6.3.1995 and 10.4.1995 that teachers of the Project Girls' High School are entitled for salary from the date of appointment and as such, the petitioners are also entitled for salary from the date of their appointment. 7. As cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, guidelines, rules and judicial pronouncement, order of recovery dated 26.8.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount if the amount has already been recovered, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioner is also entitled for salary from the date of his initial appointment in view order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1993(R) and in view of the fact that issue is now no more res integra as it has been held in catena of decision and affirmed upto the Apex Court. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.