Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2230 (JHR)

Raj Vivekanand Marandi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-08

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - The petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant him Grade-I scale from the date of his joining and further to grant Grade-II promotion to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent to make modification/rectification in the Memo No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 issued by the Secretary to the Govt., School Education and Literacy Department to the extent that the benefit which has been given to the Assistant Teachers be extended to the teachers appointed on compassionate ground also. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on compassionate ground as Assistant Teacher. The petitioner after his appointment was discharging his duties to the utter satisfaction of the concerned authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the condition stipulated in his appointment letter, he was to be sent for in-service Teachers Training within one year of his joining but in spite of that, the government did not take any step for sending him for such training within the stipulated time. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the order passed by this Hon''ble Court as well as by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the syllabus for one year teachers training was prescribed by the government and subsequently, the petitioner was sent for training and finally he has passed his examination in the year 2010 and thus, much delay has occurred in obtaining teachers training qualification, due to the fault and laches on the part of the respondents. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that after passing of in-service training examination, the petitioner has served for more than 14 years but even then, the benefits of Grade-II has not been given to him. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that the State of Jharkhand has adopted the promotion rules of the State of Bihar, which is known as Bihar Taken Over Primary Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 and Rule-5 of the said Rules clearly provides that for grant of Grade-I to Grade-IV, only 8 years of service is required in Grade-I. Similarly, the said Rules provide that after completion of 12 years of service, the promotion to the Grade-II is to be given to every eligible teacher, who have completed 12 years of continuous service. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has made several representations before the respondents for extending him the said benefits but the respondents have not paid any heed to the representations of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner has approached this Hon''ble Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 14.12.2017 by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S).No.502 of 2016 along with other analogous cases. 5. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid cases. 6. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S).No.502 of 2016 along with other analogous cases and the present writ petition may be disposed of in view of order passed in above mentioned cases. 7. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(S).No.502 of 2016 along with other analogous cases and if the case of the present petitioner is found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.502 of 2016 along with other analogous cases, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. 8. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order regarding his promotions and other consequential benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. Further, in identical matters, which were disposed of by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 502 of 2016 along with other analogous cases vide order dated 14.12.2017, a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents in which it was clearly mentioned that a High Level Committee vide order dated 25.10.2017 headed by the Joint Secretary to the Department was constituted for reviewing the existing Resolution No. 3027 and Committee has submitted its report on 16.11.2017 in which the Committee has recommended that the benefits of the Resolution dated 14.12.2015 can be extended to all the petitioners and similarly situated employees including the compassionate appointee. A Memorandum along with recommendation of the Committee will be sent for concurrence of Finance Department and the same would be then sent for the approval of the Cabinet. 10. But surprisingly, even after lapse of almost one year, nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents have taken any decision in compliance of earlier order passed in W.P.(S) No. 502 of 2016 and other analogous cases. Even after specific order and directions of this Court, several writ petitions of similar nature are being filed seeking the same relief. The Hon''ble Apex Court has made clear direction/observation in catena of decision that if an issue has been decided by the High Court or Hon''ble Apex Court, for the same set of relief, employees of the State cannot be permitted to move the Court. As the issue has not yet been decided as yet by the respondents, the poor employee /teacher in the instant case for same relief or same cause of action has approached this Court which shows the lackadaisical and lethargic approach of the respondents and is highly condemnable. Therefore, the Registry is directed to communicate this order along with earlier order passed on 14.12.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 502 of 2016 and other analogous cases to Chief Secretary of the State Government. On receipt of the orders of this Court, the Chief Secretary shall seek an instruction from the concerned employees/department that as to why no steps have been taken even after a lapse of considerable time, when a specific order has been passed by this Court. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.