Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1636 (JHR)

Shailendra Kumar Sinha v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-25

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents for giving him the benefit of upgradation in pay scale as per Assured career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 05.01.1993 up till now along with interest. 2. The averments, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as Veterinary Doctor in the department of Animal husbandry and Fisheries in the year 1981. The petitioner has been granted the benefit of 1st Time Bound Promotion after completion of 10 years of service i.e. with effect from 15.03.1991 and thereafter the said benefit has been given to the petitioner till 01.03.1996. On the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, the benefit of the said scheme was withdrawn with effect from 01.03.1996 on the condition that the employee will be provided benefit of Assured Career Progression scheme. It has been stated that the scheme of Assured Career Progression has been given effect with effect from 09.08.1999 as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. It has further been stated that the petitioner is entitled to get the 1st upgradation with effect from 05.03.1993 since on the due date no criminal case or any departmental proceeding was pending. Subsequently the petitioner was put under suspension w.e.f 12.02.1999. It has been further stated that the respondents are duty bound to release the difference of arrears of salary with effect from 05.03.1993 to 01.03.1996 and thereafter the difference of arrears of salary with effect from 01.03.1996 till 12.02.1999 and also the subsistence allowance on the basis of enhanced pay scale. In this regard, petitioner has given several representations, photo copy of the representation dated 20.05.2004 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner has been convicted in RC-50(A)/96 vide judgment dated 18.12.2008 against which the appeal is pending before this Hon''ble Court. Due to inaction of the respondents, the petitioner left with no other alternative, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Due to inaction of the respondents, the petitioner left with no other alternative, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondents are under the bounden duty to extend the benefit to Assured Career Progression scheme w.e.f. 05.01.1993 on completion of 12/24 years of continuous service from the initial date of appointment, since on the said date admittedly there was neither any proceeding nor any charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of ACP amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, wherein it has been submitted that petitioner was firstly suspended vide memo dated 08.02.1996 for the charge of financial irregularity in fodder scam and then he was dismissed vide memo dated 11.03.1996. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.735 of 1998 before the Hon''ble Patna High Court. Thereafter in compliance to the order dated 27.02.1998 passed by the Hon''ble Patna High Court petitioner was again suspended in the Fodder Scam vide memo dated 12.02.1999. It has been averred that according to the provisions laid down in memorandum dated 08.02.1999 in the light of 5th Pay Revision, the benefits of time bound/selection grade have been abolished with effect from 01.01.1996. In the light of such memorandum, the Government of Jharkhand issued memorandum dated 14.08.2002 whereby on completion of 12/24 years of continuous service, a Government employee is entitled for the ACP with some terms and conditions which are required for regular promotion e.g. passing of departmental exam, service confirmation, C.R. of required period, clearance certificate from vigilance department. It is submitted that the benefits of ACP will be granted on due date or on 09.08.1999 whichever is later and the amount of arrear will be continued from 15.11.2000. It has been stated that according to the para 3(iii) of memorandum dated 14.08.2002, petitioner''s 1st ACP due date is 09.08.1999 and the petitioner has already been suspended before his due date of ACP, hence petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. 5. It has been stated that according to the para 3(iii) of memorandum dated 14.08.2002, petitioner''s 1st ACP due date is 09.08.1999 and the petitioner has already been suspended before his due date of ACP, hence petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has submitted that in order to be eligible for grant of benefit of ACP, all terms and conditions of the scheme are to be satisfied such as passing of departmental exam, service confirmation, C.R. of required period, clearance certificate from the vigilance department, Lokayukte and internal or departmental. Since the petitioner was charge sheeted in the Fodder Scam cases and subsequently has been convicted by the learned trial court, therefore, basing on the memorandum dated 14.08.2002 whereby provisions of ACP on completion of 12/24 years of service has been laid down for the government employee, learned counsel for the State further submits that the case of the petitioner though was put up before the Screening Committee but it was kept pending due to his involvement in the Fodder Scam. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 and was suspended by the Government of Bihar, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department vide memo dated 08.02.1996 for the charge of financial irregularity in fodder scam for the first time and then he was dismissed vide memo dated 11.03.1996 of the Bihar Government. Subsequently the said dismissal order was challenged in C.W.J.C No.735 of 1998 and the order of dismissal was quashed by the Hon''ble Patna High court vide order dated 27.02.1998. In pursuance to order dated 27.02.1998 passed by the Patna High Court, the order of dismissal was cancelled by the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar and again the petitioner was placed under suspension for his involvement in fodder scam vide order dated 12.02.1999. Vide report received from CBI, Ranchi vide letter dated 18.07.2003 the petitioner has been charge sheeted in Fodder Scam case No.R.C-43 of 1996, 44 of 1996, 46 of 1996, 47 of 1996, 49 of 1996 and 50 of 1996 and thereafter the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial court in the aforesaid cases. 7. Vide report received from CBI, Ranchi vide letter dated 18.07.2003 the petitioner has been charge sheeted in Fodder Scam case No.R.C-43 of 1996, 44 of 1996, 46 of 1996, 47 of 1996, 49 of 1996 and 50 of 1996 and thereafter the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial court in the aforesaid cases. 7. Since the Assured Career Progression scheme came into operation in the year 2002 which was effective from 09.08.1999 and at the relevant time the petitioner has been involved in the Fodder Scam cases. The petitioner has been charge sheeted in different Fodder Scam cases, in view of the chequered history and the blemished career of the petitioner and as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the petitioner does not deserve to be considered for grant of benefit flowing from the Assured Career Progression scheme. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.