Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 975 (JHR)

Ram Das Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2020-10-07

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdeesh, learned counsel for the respondents-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the letter dated 22.01.2019 issued by the Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby the respondent has refused to pay dearness allowances, annual increment and other allowances payable with the pay scale during payment of salary of the petitioner for the period 16.05.2001 to 05.02.2008. 4. The petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.717 of 2016 for the payment of rest amount of Rs.5,92,677/- which was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner taking into account relevant rules, guidelines and circulars. The petitioner was engaged in the year 1978 in view of Central Government scheme to impart literacy to illiterate of age group of 15 to 35 years pre dominantly living in rural areas which was known as Adult Education Programme. The said Adult Education Programme started all over the country including the State of Bihar w.e.f. 2nd October, 1975. The Central Government has decided to stop this scheme and pursuant thereto the Government of Jharkhand stopped that scheme on 15.05.2001. The Government however, decided to absorb surplus person due to closure of that scheme. Pursuant thereto, Government of Jharkhand issued Notification dated 30.05.2007 and it has been decided for absorption of surplus employees engaged in Adult Education Programme in different Departments of Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner was absorbed in Human Resource Department w.e.f. 1st February, 2008 5. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the petitioner was declared surplus, his pay was at Rs.5200/- in pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 when he was readjusted on 05.02.2008, he was provided reduced pay of Rs.3050/- in minimum pay scale of 3050-75-3950- 80-4590. The petitioner was absorbed in Human Resource Department w.e.f. 1st February, 2008 5. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the petitioner was declared surplus, his pay was at Rs.5200/- in pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 when he was readjusted on 05.02.2008, he was provided reduced pay of Rs.3050/- in minimum pay scale of 3050-75-3950- 80-4590. He submits that at the time of readjustment on 05.02.2008, the revised pay scale of the petitioner should have been Rs.5200-20200, Grade Pay of Rs.2400 which is equivalent to the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 but the petitioner has been provided minimum pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80- 4590. 6. Per contra, Mr. Jagdeesh, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the petitioner is not entitled in view of the fact that the Central Government scheme is closed and the petitioner was absorbed in the Department on the condition that service of petitioner will be treated as new appointee and there is no lien of counting past service on which absorption of the petitioner has been provided. He further submits that the order has also not been given for pay protection to the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for the said scale as claimed by the petitioner. He further submits that the matter has been set at rest in view of judgment of Full Bench of this Court which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.10361-10364/2014. 7. In the light of above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the Annexure-1 which is the policy decision of the Government to absorb surplus employee of erstwhile Adult Education Programme. In Clause 11, it is clearly stipulated that the service of the absorb employees shall be treated as new one and no pay protection has been provided in the said order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.505-531 of 2020 at para 23 has observed which reads as under:- 23. The case of Baliram Singh arises out of the policy of the State of Bihar wherein the past service has been specifically ordered to be considered for pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.505-531 of 2020 at para 23 has observed which reads as under:- 23. The case of Baliram Singh arises out of the policy of the State of Bihar wherein the past service has been specifically ordered to be considered for pension. Since in the State of Jharkhand, the policy decision is to treat them as fresh appointments without any benefit of seniority and pay protection, therefore, to count the period when the appellants were working under a Project as pensionable service is beyond comprehension. The appellants have been appointed as fresh candidates and, therefore, their period of service for pension has to be calculated from the date of their regular appointment and therefore they cannot get any benefit of past service rendered by them. 8. As a cumulative effect of above discussion and considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the policy decision of Government when no pay protection has been provided to the persons, who have been absorbed and it was considered that the service will be treated as new appointee. In that view of the matter, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed.