Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 468 (JHR)

Shri Sukhdeo Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-03

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
ORDER Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as, prayers at clause (i) and (ii) in the amended writ-petition are concerned, these stand satisfied. This amended writ-petition is mainly confined to challenge to the orders dated 11.12.2009 and 04.01.2010 by which benefit of 2nd Financial Up gradation has been withdrawn and for a direction for grant of 2nd Financial Up gradation. 2. The leaned counsel assailing orders dated 11.12.2009 and 04.01.2010 contends that once the petitioner was inducted in the cadre of Class-III employees, benefit of two Financial Up gradation must be granted to him, reckoning 13.11.1973 as the date from which 12/24 years continuous service shall be counted and while so, ACP benefits shall flow to the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on Clause-(vi) to the Resolution dated 14.08.2002 to contend that the petitioner who would complete 24 years of continuous service on 13.11.1993 is entitled for 2nd ACP. 3. ACP Scheme was notified in the State of Jharkhand vide Resolution dated 14.08.2002 and the benefit of the financial up gradation was granted to the Government employees with effect from 09.08.1999. The scheme was floated to extend financial incentives to the Government employees who, either on account of unavailability of sufficient promotional posts or since there is no promotional post, were not promoted. Under the ACP scheme such employees shall be compensated by granting financial up gradation. There are, however, several conditions for grant of financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme, inter-alia, (i) the employee must have completed 12/24 years of continuous service, (ii) he has acquired the eligibility for promotion on the promotional post, (iii) he has passed the Departmental Examination/Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination/Accounts Examination (if needed), (iv) the employee was not granted promotion or was granted only one promotion, (v) he has not been punished/convicted in a Departmental Proceeding or a criminal trial etc. It has been specifically indicated in the Resolution dated 14.08.2002 that the period of ad hoc, temporary, contract, etc., shall not be counted towards the total period of service. The respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner, who was initially appointed on 28.09.1964, was promoted on a Class-III post on 13.11.1973. He was subsequently, promoted to the post of Head Clerk vide letter dated 07.12.1977, and thus, he cannot be granted the 2nd Financial Up gradation. The respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner, who was initially appointed on 28.09.1964, was promoted on a Class-III post on 13.11.1973. He was subsequently, promoted to the post of Head Clerk vide letter dated 07.12.1977, and thus, he cannot be granted the 2nd Financial Up gradation. The petitioner has claimed that once his revised pay is fixed in the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/-, he should be granted pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- because he has completed 24 years of continuous service. 4. On a reading of the stipulations under Resolution dated 14.08.2002, I find that the plea raised by the petitioner that his appointment on the Class-III post on 13.11.1973 is a new appointment and not a promotion is misconceived. The petitioner appeared in the Limited Departmental Examination for promotion on a Class-III post. His appointment is not a new appointment rather, in service jurisprudence, it is described as appointment by promotion. The contention insofar as, grant of similar benefit to Prabhu Dayal Singh, Shankar Kumar Pandey, Naresh Ram, Radhe Krishna Choudhary and others is concerned, I find that brief history of their service records is not on record. Moreover, once in view of Resolution dated 14.08.2002 claim of the petitioner fails, it cannot be granted on a plea that few others have been extended the benefit of pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. 5. Insofar as, fixation of pension is concerned, the benefit of revised pay-scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/- shall automatically flow to the petitioner. However, the prayer for grant of penal interest in not releasing the benefit of pay-revision is declined. The petitioner, who superannuated from service in the year 2003, approached this Court in the year 2008 and thereafter, this writ-petition was amended at his instance. From the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, it cannot be said that his correct pay-fixation was delayed on account of intentional act/acts of the respondents and therefore, it is held that he is not entitled for grant of penal interest. 6. The writ-petition insofar as, prayers at Clause(i) and Clause(ii) are concerned renders infructuous and in respect of fixation of pension in revised pay-scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/- also renders infructuous, after issuance of Authority Slip dated 08.01.2016. The remaining prayers stand rejected.