Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 792 (JHR)

Surya Narayan Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2020-08-21

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing and set aside the reasoned order as contained in Memo No.695 dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent no.3 and communicated vide Memo No.1040 dated 22.05.2013, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. It has also been prayed for further direction upon the respondent authorities to revise and fix the pension of the petitioner in the pay scale of 5000-8000/-instead of Rs.4000-6000/-which has been paid to the similarly situated employees like the petitioner in pursuance to the judgment dated 12.05.2004, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2300 of 2002. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for the similar reliefs in W.P.(S) No.1477 of 2005, and the said writ application was disposed of by giving a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWJC No. 2330 of 2002. Pursuant to the said order passed in W.P.(S) No.1477 of 2005, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent authority, however his claim was rejected vide impugned order dated 25.03.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court in the previous writ application was very clear and the respondent authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.2300 of 2002. However, the respondent authority has not at all considered that judgment in the impugned order rather rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of a letter dated 11.01.1993 issued by the State of Bihar. She further contended that the said letter was considered initially by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the claim of those petitioners was decided in their favour inasmuch as the Auxiliary Health workers were granted the same pay scale of Block Extension Educator. She concluded her argument that the petitioner being Auxiliary Health Worker is entitled for the same pay scale of Block Extension Educator. 5. She concluded her argument that the petitioner being Auxiliary Health Worker is entitled for the same pay scale of Block Extension Educator. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated its stand mentioned in the counter affidavit and contended inter-alia that claim of the petitioner was not maintainable because there is no such provision to provide the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-as the petitioner was appointed on the post Auxiliary Health Worker and finally retired on the same post. He further contended that according to the Government of India Health & Family Welfare Ministry, New Delhi, letter No.1112012/9/78 F.W.B dated 15.05.1979 and also letter No.13(20) dated 11.01.1993, the District Level Staffing pattern was provided, whereby the petitioner was not fit for such claim because the petitioner was appointed on the post of Auxiliary Health Worker. As such, there is no error in the impugned order and the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that this Court in W.P.(S) No.2300 of 2002 has categorically held that the pay scale of Auxiliary Health Worker was fixed at par with the Block Extension Educator on the basis of the judgment of the Patna High Court and consequently, the State Government by taking policy decision with the approval of Finance Department accepted the same as such, it would be incorrect to say that the petitioner was entitled to the salary in the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6000/-. Relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below:- “Having heard the parties and after considering the respective submissions made by them, I am of the view that the Accountant General, Bihar has committed wrong by issuing Annexure-6 as the pay scale of the Auxiliary Health Worker was fixed at par with the Block Extension Educator on the basis of judgment of the Patna High Court and consequently, by the State Government by taking policy decision with the approval of Finance Department and therefore, it is wrong to say that the petitioner was entitled to the salary in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. The pay scale of Auxiliary Health Worker and Block Extension Educator were the same before the revision of the pay scale in the year 1996 and, therefore, the Auxiliary Health Workers are also entitled to the same replacement of pay scale which was available to the Block Extension Educator after the revision of pay. Admittedly, the replacement scale of pay of the Block Extension Educator is Rs.5000-8000/-and, therefore, the Auxiliary Health Workers were rightly being given the same pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-…………………….” 7. Further in the case of the petitioner this Court after dealing the entire aspects held as under:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners appear to have been made out a case that they were entitled to similar treatment as given to Block Extension Educator. In this regard they have relied upon the judgment by Patna High Court as also the judgment rendered by this Court in CWJC No.2330 of 2002. Of course, the petitioners have retired in the scale of Rs.4000-6000/-but it appears that the very question whether these Auxiliary Health Workers were to be granted the said scale of Block Extension Educator in view of the judgments rendered by the Patna High Court and also referred to in the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P(S) No.2300 of 2002 have not been given proper attention by the respondents and it requires reconsideration on their part. In these circumstances, the petitioners are directed to approach the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Respondent No.4 with a fresh representation for consideration of their claim for grant of scale of Rs.5000-8000/-and consequent revision in post retirement benefits……….” 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent authority has not at all considered the judgment passed by this Court in W.P(S) No.1477 of 2005 as well as in W.P.(S) No.2300 of 2002. As a matter of fact, the respondent authority though quoted the operative portion of the order dated 15.01.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.1477 of 2005, but interestingly has not decided the claim in accordance with the direction of the said order. As a matter of fact, the respondent authority though quoted the operative portion of the order dated 15.01.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.1477 of 2005, but interestingly has not decided the claim in accordance with the direction of the said order. As a matter of fact, there is no finding whatsoever with respect to the direction rather the respondent authority has taken into consideration the letter dated 11.01.1993, which dealt with the staffing pattern and concluded that the petitioner is not entitled for the same pay scale which was granted to the Block Extension Executor. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.695 dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order strictly in the light of judgment passed in the case of W.P.(S) No.1477 of 2005 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the pension shall be re-fixed and the arrear thereof shall be paid within a further period of two months. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant application is allowed and disposed.