Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2220 (JHR)

Birendra Nath Mahato v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-05

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for quashing the letter dated 04.06.2010, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi, whereby he has fixed the 5th Revised Pay-Scale provisionally for non-teaching Class-III and IV employees, in which the petitioners are put under ''adjourned position''. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to fix the pay-scale of the petitioners under 5th Revised Pay-Scale in view of the fact that the similarly situated co- employees had already been granted the said benefits. 3. At the very outset, it has been submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 1047 of 2017 (Sundar Tiu & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which, after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties, this Hon''ble Court disposed of the said writ petition on 23.08.2018, with the following observations:- "Be that as it may, from perusal of the records it transpires that the respondent-University has already recommended the case of the petitioners for extending the benefits under the 5th and 6th Pay Revision but no decision has been taken by the respondents-State. If the documents have not reached to the office of the Director, Higher Education they are hereby directed to call for records of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order for consideration of their cases for grant of benefits under 5th and 6th Pay Revision. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say if petitioners are found entitled for the benefits under the 5th and 6th Pay Revision, the same shall be extended to them within a further period of one month." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in case of Ratni Oraon and Ors. Vs. Needless to say if petitioners are found entitled for the benefits under the 5th and 6th Pay Revision, the same shall be extended to them within a further period of one month." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in case of Ratni Oraon and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 7818 of 2012), the entire benefits have been extended to the petitioners of that case but in case of present petitioners, till date they have been discriminated from the said benefits and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the cases of the present petitioners in view of the fact that similarly situated co-employees, Ratni Oraon and Ors., have already been extended the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision and as such, the issue is no more res-integra. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that College has already made its recommendation on 08.06.2018 and now it is the respondent-State which has to take a decision on such recommendation. However, learned counsel further argues that if it has not been recommended by the University till date, the same shall be recommended within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this Order, in view of the fact that similarly situated coemployees, Ratni Oraon & ors., have already been recommended by the University to the State, for consideration of their cases and it is the State, who has to take a final decision and release the funds. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue involved this case is no more res-integra and the same has already been decided by this Court in case of Ratni Oraon and Sundar Tiu & Ors. . Further, it transpires that the College has already recommended the cases of the present petitioners to the University but nothing has been brought on record by the University, as to whether the University has recommended the same to the State or not. . Further, it transpires that the College has already recommended the cases of the present petitioners to the University but nothing has been brought on record by the University, as to whether the University has recommended the same to the State or not. In such circumstances, I hereby direct the University to look into the matter and if till date the University has not recommended the cases of the petitioners before the State, the recommendation shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this Order and further, the respondent-State is directed to release the funds to the College for making payment of the admitted dues to the present petitioners, within four weeks thereafter, taking into consideration the case of Ratni Oraon , in which payments has already been made to the petitioners of that case. 7. Needless to say that if the University has already recommended the cases of the present petitioners before the respondent- State, the respondent-State is directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, extending the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision to the present petitioners, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.