Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1463 (JHR)

Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-08-22

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with a prayer to determine his salary at the pay scale of 240-396 in place of 180-242 which has not been done even after his superannuation, though the petitioner has been representing the respondents regularly and even after the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.1080 of 1997 (R) dated 26.11.1997. Further prayer has been made to fix the pension and make payment of the arrears of pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with the pay scale of Trained Plumber after the determination of the same. 2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Plumber Mistry in the Public Health Engineering Department, Hatia Project, Ranchi in the pay scale of Rs.180-2-190-3-238-4-242 in the year 1974 vide office order No.96 dated 14.04.1974. From the letter of appointment itself, it appears that petitioner was Industrial Technical Institute Trained. He had also obtained two years practical experience in the Public Health Engineering Department, Hatia Project, Ranchi and also worked on temporary basis in the said department prior to the issuance of the aforesaid appointment letter. The petitioner was made permanent on the aforesaid post vide office order No.206 dated 25.01.1086 from the retrospective date of 16.04.1984. The petitioner though was appointed as I.T.I. Trained Plumber Mistry and was qualified to get Group III pay scale from the very beginning, but he was denied the same and was given the pay scale of Group IV Grade. In view of the letter issued by the Govt. of Bihar vide its letter No.67 dated 18.01.1994 informed all the Superintending Engineers of the Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar that all the Plumbers who are I.T.I. trained and were appointed to the post of Plumber directly as I.T.I. trained, were to be directly appointed by the Superintending Engineer because of the admitted fact that the post of Plumber was Group III post. A letter was issued in pursuance to the decision dated 22.05.1992 of the Hon’ble High Court, Patna in C.W.J.C.No.6791 of 1991 and the reference was further made to the departmental vide letter no.3710 dated 01.09.1979. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Govt. A letter was issued in pursuance to the decision dated 22.05.1992 of the Hon’ble High Court, Patna in C.W.J.C.No.6791 of 1991 and the reference was further made to the departmental vide letter no.3710 dated 01.09.1979. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Govt. of Bihar was directed by the Central Government that persons who were trained in the Government Industrial Training Institute and appointed as I.T.I. trained Plumber and further if they were performing the same job, then they are entitled for the pay scale of a I.T.I. trained Plumber. Govt. of Bihar through its various circulars and departmental letters has admitted that those employees who were I.T.I. trained and were also working in the same trade were entitled for the pay scale determined by the Government. Vide letter dated 03.08.1983 it is directed that if the persons found to be working in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- as I.T.I. trained employee, but if not being paid the same scale, then they are entitled for the same. The petitioner was appointed directly as I.T.I. trained and was working to the post of Plumber as I.T.I. trained employee and hence working in the same Grade, was thus entitled for the pay scale of Rs.240-396. It is stated that the petitioner was unfortunately given pay scale of Group IV employees even though as per the aforementioned circulars he was entitled for the Group III pay scale. The petitioner in view of the circular dated 18.01.1994 as annexed as Annexure-3, made his grievance cum representation to the Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar (now Jharkhand), Ranchi through proper channel bringing all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the notice dated 16.10.1994. Pursuant to the aforesaid representation of the petitioner the Executive Engineer forwarded his representation to the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, vide letter dated 01.12.1994, requesting the Superintending Engineer to fix the pay scale as admissible to the Group III employee (Rs.240-396/-). Thereafter the Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department vide his letter No.274 dated 10.04.1995 directed the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (Urban), Ranchi to enquire into the matter and do the needful. 4. Thereafter the Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department vide his letter No.274 dated 10.04.1995 directed the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (Urban), Ranchi to enquire into the matter and do the needful. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that he is entitled for the pay scale of Trained Plumber since his joining in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.1080 of 1997 (R) but even after his retirement on 31.03.2010 his pay scale of Trained Plumber has not been determined and as such petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court. 5. Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.240-396 which is given to the trained Plumbers. Learned Counsel further argues that though his case was recommended for determination of the said pay scale in view of the notification of the Bihar Government but till date respondents have not taken any decision nor his pay scale has been determined though he superannuated in the year 2010 itself. Mr. Tripathi drawing the attention of the Court towards several notification of the State of Bihar and submits that in view of the notification of the State of Bihar as also that of the Central Government, and also in view of the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C.No.1080 of 1997 (R) dated 26.11.1997, petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.240-396. 6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than 40 years from the date of initial appointment. No discretion can be shown by this Court for a person who has approached the Court after 40 years of initial appointment for redressal of his grievance regarding determination of the initial pay scale. Learned Counsel further submits that the notification of the State Government and also State of Bihar are also no help to the petitioner as that was for the Water Resources Department and the petitioner is working under Public Health Department. Learned Counsel emphatically argues that petitioner is not entitled for any relief by this Court on the ground of delay itself. 8. Learned Counsel emphatically argues that petitioner is not entitled for any relief by this Court on the ground of delay itself. 8. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. A person who is not vigilant of his rights is not entitled for any relief. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1977 getting pay scale 180-242 but it was only in the year 1997, the petitioner for the first time approached Patna High Court. The Court declined to interfere and held that promotion given to the respondent No.3 in the instant case requires no interference. However, a direction was given for consideration regarding pay parity. Thereafter, the petitioner all along his service career accepting pay scale of Rs.180-242. never raised any grievance by moving this Court for redressal of his grievance regarding determination of pay scale. It was only in the year 2016, much after retirement, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievance regarding determination of the pay scale for which a trained Plumber is entitled. From perusal of the records and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State, it appears that the petitioner right from his initial appointment was never vigilant. The writ petition was filed in the 2016 and remained in Lawazima for removal of defects for three long years. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. vrs. T.T. Murali Babu”, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held that writ petition is not maintainable due to delay and laches on the part of the employee as there was 4 years delay in filing the writ petition and was accordingly dismissed. The Court observed that in civil service matters, six months’ time is enough for approaching the Court. In the instant case, delay is of more than 40 years and it was only due to laches on the part of the petitioner, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant. In the instant case, delay is of more than 40 years and it was only due to laches on the part of the petitioner, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, the law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and judicial pronouncement, no interference is warranted and the writ petition merits dismissal. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed.