Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 10 (MAN)

Kh. Kesho Singh v. State of Manipur

2020-02-25

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.9.2016 passed by the second respondent, whereby the second respondent issued orders to the effect that the claim of the petitioner for grant of grade pay of Rs.4400/- under ACP-II shall be considered as and when existing grade pay of BDO (Jr) is revised to Rs.4400/- under ROP-2010. The petitioner also seeks direction on the respondents to allow him to enjoy the grade pay of Rs.4400/- under ACP-II, as the said grade pay was being enjoyed by the BDO (Jr) of the RD PR Department, Government of Manipur. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as Village Level Worker (VLW) on regular basis for the last 31 years in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Government of Manipur. As per the ACP Scheme framed by the State Government, the petitioner was entitled to the ACP-II with effect from 16.06.2010 and accordingly, he was given the revised scale of pay of Rs.5500-175- 9000/-. Thereafter, the said scale of pay has been revised to Rs.9300- 34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4400/- which is equivalent to the scale of pay of BDO (Jr) which has been included in the cadre of Junior MCS. Without giving any opportunity of being heard, the Director, RD PR issued a corrigendum whereby the scale of pay of VLW was given as Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4300/-. 3. Aggrieved by the corrigendum, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.477 of 2014 challenging the same and the writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the authorities by making his claim and the respondents were directed to consider the same by a speaking order. The petitioner also filed review petition and the same was also disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order of the authorities, he would be at liberty to approach the Court again. On 21.9.2016, the second respondent issued an order that the claim of the petitioner for grant of grade pay of Rs.4400/- under ACP-II shall be considered as and when the existing grade pay of BDO (Jr) is revised to Rs.4400/- under ROP-2010, which is challenged in the present petition. According to the petitioner, the BDO (Jr) is enjoying the grade pay of Rs.4400/-. 4. According to the petitioner, the BDO (Jr) is enjoying the grade pay of Rs.4400/-. 4. Resisting the petition, the respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner who is holding the post of VLW cannot claim the grade pay enjoyed by the BDO (Jr), who has come from the organised service like Junior MCS under the ACP-II. The pay scale of the petitioner under ACP-II has already been fixed in accordance with Finance Department Notification dated 5.5.2010 wherein the pay scale of BDO (Jr) under RD PR Department is fixed at Rs.9300-34800 plus grade pay of Rs.4300/-. Therefore, as long as the above notification is in force, the claim of the petitioner that he has been denied the benefit under ACP-II under the grade pay of Rs.4400/- is not tenable. 5. It is stated that the order for financial upgradation under ACP-II in respect of trained/graduate VLWs issued by the Directorate of RD PR dated 28.7.2012 was found irregular and against the Finance Department notification dated 5.5.2010. There is no other revised scale of BDO (Jr) under RD PR Department with grade pay of Rs.4400/- for which the petitioner is claiming under ACP-II issued by the Finance Department except the existing scale/pay ban of Rs.9300- 34800 plus grade pay Rs.4300/-. A corrigendum dated 7.8.2013 was issued to the effect that in the order dated 18.8.2012 for upgradation under ACP-II in respect of Graduate and Under Graduate VLW shall be read as Rs.5500-175~900 and Rs.9300-34800 plus 4300 (grade pay) in place of 6500-200-10500 and Rs.9300-34800-4400 (grade pay) respectively in column No.7 and 8 of the order dated 18.8.2012. 6. It is also stated that the VLWs who have completed 24 years including the petitioner are benefited under ACP-II to the existing scale of pay Rs.9300-34800+4300 (grade pay) of BDO (Jr) as per the corrigendum dated 7.8.2013. The same scale of pay is now being enjoyed by H.Rajan Singh, BDO (Jr) of Imphal East and he is drawing Rs.4300/- as grade pay. The impugned order came to be passed in compliance with the order dated 12.7.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.477 of 2014. 7. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that Ph.Mema Devi, PA. was appointed as BDO (Jr) along with H.Rajen Singh in the existing scale of pay Rs.9300-34800+4300 (grade pay) and the same scale of pay is now being enjoyed by them. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. 7. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that Ph.Mema Devi, PA. was appointed as BDO (Jr) along with H.Rajen Singh in the existing scale of pay Rs.9300-34800+4300 (grade pay) and the same scale of pay is now being enjoyed by them. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the existing grade pay of BDO (Jr) is Rs.4400/-, by the impugned order, the second respondent wrongly stated that the claim of the petitioner for grant of grade pay of Rs.4400/- under ACP-II shall be considered as and when the existing grade of pay of BDO (Jr) is revised to Rs.4400/-. 9. Per contra, the State counsel argued that the petitioner is benefited under ACP-II to the existing pay scale of Rs.9300- 34800+4300 (grade pay) of BDO (Jr) and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the grade pay at Rs.4400/-. 10. According to the petitioner, he was granted financial upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 under the ACP-II as the petitioner had completed 24 years of service as VLW. The petitioner claims that all the trained/graduate VLWs, who have been allowed the said pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 under ACP-II had been again further given the revised pay band of Rs.9300-34800+4400 (grade pay) vide notification dated 20.9.2011. The petitioner also claims that the aforesaid pay band had been revised further under order dated 28.7.2012. 11. It appears that when the respondents issued corrigendum dated 7.8.2013 to revise the pay band 9300-34800+4400 as 9300- 34800+4300, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.477 of 2014 before this Court contending that in view of the corrigendum, the petitioner stands to loose a sum of Rs.100/- per month in the grade pay. By the order dated 12.7.2016, the said writ petition came to be disposed of with the following direction: 'This Court is of the view that, though the State respondents have taken the said stand, the petitioner may file a further detailed representation to substantiate his claim by submitting a fresh representation within a period of one month from today and the State respondents shall consider the said representation by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said representation.' 12. Pursuant to the direction issued in the said writ petition, the respondents re-examined the matter and issued the impugned order. Pursuant to the direction issued in the said writ petition, the respondents re-examined the matter and issued the impugned order. The operative portion of the order reads thus: 'The petitioner is admissible to enjoy the financial upgradation under ACP-II in the existing scale of pay of BDO (Jr) Rs.9300-34800+4300 grade pay under ROP 2010. There is no other revised scale of pay of BDO (Jr) issued by the Finance Department (PIC) Government of Manipur except the existing scale of pay of BBC (Jr). Now therefore the claim of the petitioner for grant of Grade pay Rs.4400/- under ACP-II shall be considered as and when existing Grade pay of BDO (Jr) is revised to Rs.4400/- under ROP 2010.' 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that the BDOs (Jr) are getting the grade pay of Rs.4400/- and since the petitioner is admissible to enjoy the financial upgradation under ACP-II in the existing scale of pay of BDO (Jr), he should be granted grade pay of Rs.4400/-. Referring to the cases of H.Rajen Singh and Ph.Mema Devi, BDOs (Jr), the respondent State contended that the existing scale of pay band of those persons is Rs.9300-34800+4300 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim grade pay at Rs.4400/-. 14. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the order dated 23.1.2018 passed by the Department of PAR, Personnel Division, Government of Manipur. On a perusal of the same, this Court finds that in exercise of powers conferred under rule 16(1) of the Junior MCS Rules, 2007 and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee meeting held on 5.1.2018, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to induct/appoint the following officers of the constituent Departments of Junior Manipur Civil Services to the post of Junior MCS (Junior Grade) in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 plus Grade pay of Rs.4400/- with effect from the date noted against their names. 15. On a further perusal of the order, it is seen that H.Rajen Singh, BDO (Jr) RD PR and Ph.Mema Devi, BDO (Jr) RD PR names were found place at Serial Nos.71 and 72 and their date of regular appointment to the post/grade has been stated as 1.2.2016. 16. It is to be noted that the post of BDO (Jr) has been included in the cadre of Jr. 16. It is to be noted that the post of BDO (Jr) has been included in the cadre of Jr. MCS vide order dated 25.11.2011 of the Directorate of RD PR and thus, it is clear that the BDO (Jr) is entitled to claim grade pay Rs.4400/-. That is why, by an order dated 28.7.2012, the second respondent has given benefit under ACP-II to VLW trained/graduate and revised the scale of pay of Rs.9330-34800+4400, as the scale of pay of BDO (Jr) has been revised to 6500-1500 from Rs.5500 - 9000 and further the scale of pay of BDO (Jr) has been revised to Rs.9300-34800+4400 (grade pay) with effect from 8.8.2007. 17. Subsequently, when corrigendum dated 7.8.2013 was issued and revised the pay to the post of VLW under ACP-II at Rs.9300- 34800+4300 in the place of Rs.9300-34800+4400, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.477 of 2014 and while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to give a representation to the authorities and the authorities were directed to consider the same. But, the second respondent, without considering those aspects passed the impugned order. Moreover, the impugned order silent about the opportunity given to the petitioner before passing the same. Any order passed without hearing the affected party is in violation of principles of natural justice. 18. As stated supra, since the BDO (Jr) has been included in the cadre of Jr. MCS and the said aspect has not been considered by the second respondent while issuing the impugned order, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. 19. In the result, (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.9.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. (iii) While considering the matter afresh, the second respondent is directed to hear the petitioner and also take note of all the relevant particulars including the order dated 23.1.2018 of P AR Department, Government of Manipur and extend the benefit in accordance with law. (iv) The said exercise is directed to be completed by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) No costs.