Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1241 (JHR)

Tarun Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-06-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing Clause (v) of Rule 15 of the Govt. Resolution/Policy Decision, contained in Memo No. - 8/vi. 1-281/2007/3027 Ranchi dated 14.12.2015, issued under the seal and signature of the Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, wherein it is mentioned that the teachers appointed on compassionate ground will not be given the similar benefits as indicated in clause (i) & (ii) of Rule 15. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant Grade I from the date of their respective joining and further Grade-II, Grade-IV to the petitioners who have completed sufficient length of service for the said promotion, in view of the fact that the petitioners were entitled to their in-service training from a Government Training College immediately after their joining but because of delay and laches on the part of the respondents, delay has occurred in conducting training and after examination, publication of their result. Action of the respondents is contrary to the Judgment passed in Balwant Sahay [W.P.(S) No. 4235 of 2004] which is affirmed in L.P.A. No. 214 of 2008 and analogous L.P.A. No. 359 of 2008 [State of Jharkhand & Others vs. Balwant Sahay] and also not interfered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in S.L.A. No. 5520/5522 of 2013, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. The facts of the case in short is that petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Teachers upon the recommendation of the District Compassionate Establishment Committee on sanctioned and vacant post and there had been no legal impediment with respect to their appointment where they had continued uninterruptedly and continuously. Petitioners, while being in service, had augmented their career after taking due permission. They have also undergone and passed inservice Teachers'' Training Examination. In view of Circular/Letter of the Government, dated 11.11.1975, seniority of a Teacher shall not be affected in any manner by not passing or not undergoing basic training and hence, petitioners are entitled for recknoing their seniority from the date of their joining and not from the date of their passing the Teachers'' Training Examination. Due to wrong stand of the respondents regarding counting of seniority, petitioners and several others who had completed requisite length of service and are eligible, are not being promoted in appropriate scale. 4. Due to wrong stand of the respondents regarding counting of seniority, petitioners and several others who had completed requisite length of service and are eligible, are not being promoted in appropriate scale. 4. Mr. Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that this case is squarely covered by order passed in W.P.(S) No. 502 of 2016 and other analogous cases as facts of the present case and those cases are same and similar and as such, this writ petition may be disposed of in light of the order passed in those writ petitions. 5. AC to learned SC (Mines) does not object to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the issues involved in the instant writ petition is no more resintegra and as such, the same is being disposed of in light of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 502 of 2016 and other analogous cases. The case of the petitioners needs consideration. Since law is well settled and issue is no more res-integra that seniority will be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of completion of training and while considering promotion to Grade-I and to subsequent Grades, the same ratio applies. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for promotions to Grade-I scale and further to subsequent grades as applicable to individual petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment. Since the respondents have already taken into consideration the cases of the petitioners and have admitted in W.P.(S) No. 502 of 2016 and other analogous cases that the benefits of Resolution dated 14.12.2015 can be extended to all the petitioners and similarly situated employees, including the compassionate appointee, no fresh direction is required to be issued. After following all the procedures regarding the concurrence of Finance Department and approval of the Cabinet, let a final order be passed for consideration of cases of the petitioners in view of Resolution dated 14.12.2015. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and legal propositions, I hereby direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners and to pass a reasoned order regarding their promotions and other consequential benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and legal propositions, I hereby direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners and to pass a reasoned order regarding their promotions and other consequential benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, respondents may consider individual cases of the petitioners as per their facts and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, within a stipulated period, as mentioned above. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.