Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2280 (JHR)

Jagran Lohra v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-12

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application, the petitioners who are teachers have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant them Grade-I SCALE from the respective dates of their joining and further Grade- II and Grade- IV after completion of more than 19 to 23 years of services. Petitioners have further prayed for grant of seniority from the date of their joining with all consequential benefits. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases and further grant them consequential benefits and promotion after preparation of the Gradation List. 3. The petitioners herein were untrained and were appointed on different dates on the basis of the merit list prepared after completing all legal formalities. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, by letter no. 998/95 dated 07.06.1995 took a decision to grant Grade-I SCALE of the Matric Trained to the untrained teachers. However, after appointment of teachers, they were not sent for training. The appointment procedures were challenged before the Hon''ble Patna High Court and the matter went up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in S.L.P (C) No. 23187 of 1996 [Ram Vinay Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others]. In the said S.L.P., the Supreme Court gave certain directions to the State of Bihar for sending the petitioners for in-service training. Thereafter, the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand by Letter No. 4568 dated 05.07.2002 granted Grade-I Matric Trained SCALE to these untrained teachers with effect from 01.01.1996. It was also decided that the seniority position of the petitioners shall be maintained as per the merit list prepared at the time of their appointment. However, the petitioners have been stagnated in the same scale for more than 19 to 23 years without any further up-gradation in the scale. Although the persons appointed along with the petitioners and even juniors have been promoted from Grade-I SCALE to Grade-IV Scale, the petitioners have not been given even Grade-II scale. The petitioners made representations before the respondents for consideration of their cases and for grant of promotion and also for grant of suitable scale from the date of their joining but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and have not passed any order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari submits that similarly situated persons had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006 [Arun Sinha and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others] and this Court, vide order dated 04.04.2008 held that petitioners were not at fault in not getting the training but it was the fault of the State Government and accordingly directed the petitioners to file individual representations before the respondent no. 2. The said judgment has been upheld up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that in the aforesaid circumstances petitioners are entitled for promotion to Grade I, Grade-II and Grade-IV by virtue of different Government circulars and therefore withholding of promotion of the petitioners was against the Order of this Hon''ble Court. Similarly situated persons shown at Annexure-4 of the writ petition moved this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 5865 of 2014 and W.P.(S) No. 634 of 2015 and have been granted promotion and under such circumstances, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 5. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4. Mr. Navin Singh assisted by Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that in view of the order passed by this Hon''ble Court in case of Arun Sinha and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, which has been affirmed up to the Hon''ble Apex Court, the State has taken into consideration the cases of the petitioners for giving promotion on the post of Grade-I and Grade- II from the date of their initial appointment and further promotion from Grade- I to Grade II and Grade- IV are also under active consideration but no decision has been taken till date. The learned counsel further argues that since decision has to be taken by the Establishment Committee, the promotion to Grade-II and Grade-IV will be considered and granted to the petitioners if they are entitled for the same, in accordance with law in due course of time. 6. The learned counsel further argues that since decision has to be taken by the Establishment Committee, the promotion to Grade-II and Grade-IV will be considered and granted to the petitioners if they are entitled for the same, in accordance with law in due course of time. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the considered view that factually the cases of the petitioners in those cases and in the instant case are same and similar. The respondents taking into into consideration the Order passed by this Hon''ble Court have granted Grade-I and Grade II to the petitioners vide a reasoned order dated 11.08.2015 bearing memo no. 1593 and as such the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits which has been given to the similarly situated persons vide Annexure- 4 series of the present writ petition. 7. Perused the documents brought on record, the Circulars/guidelines and orders passed by this Hon''ble Court which has been affirmed up to the Hon''ble Apex Court. The instant case is squarely covered by the said decision of this Hon''ble Court at Annexure- 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the writ petition. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules/guidelines/judicial pronouncements, this writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioners are entitled for promotion on the post of Grade-1 from the date of initial appointment and after completion of 12 years of service, Grade II in view of the orders passed by this court upheld up to the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Arun Sinha & others versus State of Jharkhand & others (supra) from the date of initial appointment with all the consequential benefits and as far as promotion to Grade-IV is concerned it has already been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is in the process, the respondents are directed to complete the process as early as possible and if the petitioners are found entitled for the same, the same may be extended to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks after completion of the process of promotion. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.