Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 149 (JHR)

Jaiprakash Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2021-02-04

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting aside the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 432 dated 17.02.2012 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the representation of the petitioners for grant of Matric Trained Scale in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- has been rejected and recovery of excess payment in 20 installment has been ordered and also for a direction upon the respondent no. 4 for restoring the Matric Trained Scale of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- to these petitioners. 3. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application is that the petitioners earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2140 of 2003 for restoration of matric trained pay scale which was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2009 passed by this Court by directing the respondent no. 4 to dispose of the representation and finally the representation of all these petitioners were rejected. 4. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similar issue arose before this Court in the case of Arun Sinha and others with analogous cases which was decided in the favour of those petitioners and finally the State challenged the aforesaid order of Single Judge before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 214 of 2008 which was also dismissed and following orders was passed: “Learned Single Judge has carefully considered all the issues involved in the petition and found that the petitioners were though appointed in the year 1993-94 but they were not provided training by the fault of the State only and even the training was provided only after passing of the order by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.09.1997. Even when the petitioners completed training in the year 1999, their result was not published and after intervention of the Court that result was published in the year 2002. Therefore, in that fact situation the petitioners are not at fault in obtaining training. Not only this, but in our considered opinion also, once seniority is required to be determined in view of the Circular dated 25.06.1999 and that stands determined because of that Circular and the same could not be made ineffective by the subsequent withdrawal of the said Circular by the State Cabinet with retrospective effect. Not only this, but in our considered opinion also, once seniority is required to be determined in view of the Circular dated 25.06.1999 and that stands determined because of that Circular and the same could not be made ineffective by the subsequent withdrawal of the said Circular by the State Cabinet with retrospective effect. However, that was not the issue decided by the learned Single Judge as it has been raised by the petitioners but effect of that Circular, which has already been given, cannot be taken away and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in these L.P.As. which are, accordingly, dismissed.” 5. Mr. Kumar further submits that the respondent- State even preferred S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court; which was also dismissed and now the issue is no more res integra, as such the prayer made in the instant writ application with regard to the pay scale of these petitioners for grant of Matric Trained Scale in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-may be allowed from the date of initial appointment and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 6. He further submits that even the State of Jharkhand vide its resolution as contained in Memo No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 has taken a decision with regard to payment of matric trained scale from the date of initial appointment. 7. Ms. Bandana Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-State, after instructions, submits that the order passed by the Division Bench has attained finality; as such similar order may be passed in this case. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents including the judgment passed by this Court, it appears that the Division Bench of this Court has held that since the petitioners were not at fault in obtaining training; the benefits of Matric Trained Scale should not be denied to them. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 432 dated 17.02.2012, is quashed and set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 432 dated 17.02.2012, is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to pass a fresh order in the light of judgment referred to herein above with respect to giving of Matric Trained Scale from the date of initial appointment of the petitioners and calculate the consequential benefits thereof and pay the same to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid terms the instant writ application stands allowed.