Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 595 (JHR)

Hari Kishor Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-06-12

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-State through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred for a direction upon the respondents to implement the pension scheme existed prior to 1.12.2004, which includes the triple benefit retiral scheme (pension, gratuity and GPF) and restraining them to implement the pension scheme upon the petitioners implemented with effect from 01.12.2004 vide Memo No.518 dated 9.12.2004 as well as to allow the petitioners to continue in the old pension scheme since the persons recorded under the same Advertisement have been allowed to remain in the old pension scheme and the petitioners have been discriminated. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner no.1 is presently working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Bhilai Pahari, Jamshedpur. Similarly, petitioner No.2 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Dhanchatani, petitioner No.3 is working as Assistant Teacher in Adivashi Kalyan Madhya Vidyalaya, New Ulidih, Jamshedpur, petitioner No.4 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Bhilaipahari, Jamshedpur, petitioner No.5 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Bhilaipahari, Jamshedpur, petitioner No.6 is working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Kumrum, Jamshedpur, petitioner No.7 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Pipla Jamshedpur, petitioner No.8 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Bhilaipahari, Jamshedpur, petitioner No.9 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Dhanchatani, Jamshedpur, petitioner No.10 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Heerachuni, Jamshedpur and petitioner No.11 is working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Dhanchatani, Jamshedpur. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that the issue involved in the instant writ application is no more res-integra and the same has already been decided by this Court by order dated 03.07.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No.1869 of 2017, Lalit Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. He further submits that subsequent to that order, several other writ applications have also been disposed of in terms of order passed in the aforesaid case. As such, he contended that the instant application may also be disposed of in terms of order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Lalit Kumar Jha & Ors. (Supra). 5. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. He further submits that subsequent to that order, several other writ applications have also been disposed of in terms of order passed in the aforesaid case. As such, he contended that the instant application may also be disposed of in terms of order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Lalit Kumar Jha & Ors. (Supra). 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that though these petitioners were appointed pursuant to the same advertisement, but since their appointments were made pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government, they will be guided by the new policy for the persons appointed after 01.12.2004. He further contended that the appointment of the petitioners after the cutoff date was due to the reason that their names were recommended by the JPSC subsequently. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record and also the judgment passed in the case of Lalit Kumar Jha (Supra) I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioners requires consideration as such, the respondents are hereby directed to take a decision with regard to the grievance of the petitioners and if it found that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of the petitioners in Lalit Kumar Jha (Supra), similar relief may be granted to the present writ petitioners also in accordance with law. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioners are not found entitled for the same, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners within a further period of two weeks. 7. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of.