Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 54 (JHR)

Triyogi Narayan Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2023-01-18

S.N.PATHAK

body2023
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Letter dated 12.06.2010 as contained in Memo No.5/Ba-3-29/2010-669 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, whereby and whereunder, the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced from the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 to the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and also petitioner’s grade has been lowered from the post of Assistant to Lower Divisional Clerk. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the Letter dated 11.11.2014 as contained in Memo No.1584 issued by the Director, Higher Education, HRD Dept., whereby the petitioner’s pay-scale has been re-fixed pursunt to Letter dated 12.06.2010 as contained in Memo No.699. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to release arrears of salary and difference of salary with interest under 5th & 6th pay revision and also to fix the pension as per 5th & 6th Pay Revision Commission with interest. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in Jamshedpur Worker’s College, Jamshedpur on 14.08.1972 and Ranchi University, Ranchi fix the pay-scale of the petitioner on revised scale of Rs.580-860/- on 25.03.1983, wherein it was also mentioned that petitioner will get next increment on 01.04.1982. The State of Bihar vide its Resolution dated 27.01.1982, took decision to merge the pay-scale of Lower Divisional and Upper Divisional Clerks and in this regard, the State Government wrote letters to all the Universities to make them aware about the same. Accordingly, the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar vide letter dated 05.10.1989 informed all the Universities that pay scale of Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Assistant/Clerk has been merged w.e.f. 01.07.1981. Pursuant to letter dated 05.10.1989, Ranchi University, Ranchi issued an Office Order dated 25.04.1990, whereby it has been informed that pay-scale of Lower Division and Higher Division Assistant/Clerk has been merged in the unified pay-scale of Rs.785-1210/- w.e.f. 01.07.1981. The pay-scale of petitioner was again revised w.e.f., 01.01.1996 vide letter dated 24.01.2008 in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- and petitioner also getting salary as per the revised pay-scale. However, vide impugned letter dated 12.06.2010 as contained in Memo No.699, a provisional pay fixation chart has been issued on the basis of revised 5th Pay Revision, wherein the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced to the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, without assigning any reasons. However, vide impugned letter dated 12.06.2010 as contained in Memo No.699, a provisional pay fixation chart has been issued on the basis of revised 5th Pay Revision, wherein the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced to the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, he represented before the respondent-University, but no decision has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the respondent-State illegally and arbitrary and without application of mind, reduced the pay-scale of the petitioner, who is a Grade-III Employee though he is entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- in view of the merger of the pay-scale and in view of the Notification of the State Government issued vide Memo No.928 dated 11.06.2014, by the Director, Higher Education, Ranchi. He further submits that the respondents have once fixed the pay-scale as recommended by the University in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/-, cannot reduce /re-fix the pay scale, without any notice and without any proceedings. He further submits that fixation of pay-scale is done by the University and also recommend the same before the State Government for approval and on the basis of recommendation, the State fixes the pay-scale of an employee of University. He further submits that in the instant case, the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- has been fixed by the respondent- State also and later on, same was reduced to Rs.4000-6000/-, which is not tenable in the eyes of law . He further submits that impugned order issued by the respondent-State is not tenable in the eyes of law as the same have been issued without adhering to provisions of principles of natural justice. He further submits that the action of the respondent-State amounts to hostile discrimination as in case of one Awadhesh Kumar, the same mistake was done by the respondent-State, which was rectified after the order of this Hon’ble Court and he was granted the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- being a LDC. The respondent-State cannot adopt pick and choose method and as such, on this score also, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. The respondent-State cannot adopt pick and choose method and as such, on this score also, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that admittedly, before issuance of impugned orders, the petitioner was not put to notice and neither any opportunity was given to hear him. He further submits that the proposal for pay-fixation of the petitioner was sent by the University and in Sl. No.5 of the said proposal, the post of the petitioner was shown as Lower Division Clerk with revised pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/-, whereas, the Departmental Resolution No.396 dated 25.04.2006 reflects the revised pay-scale of Lower Division Clerk to be Rs.4000-6000/- and as such, pay-fixation of the petitioner was done as per aforesaid Resolution in revised pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent –State has already fixed the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- of one Awadhesh Kumar, who was a LDC after the order of this Hon’ble Court. 5. Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the University has already recommended the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- to the State Government and final decision has to be taken by the State not the University. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs.5500-9000/-, after revision of pay under 5th Pay Revision Commission, which was recommended by the University and accepted by the State, by fixing the said pay-scale. There was no occasion for the respondent-State to reduce the said pay-scale in the scale of Rs.4000-6000/- on the ground that in the fixation chart, the cadre of the petitioner has been mentioned as LDC. The Respondent- State itself has already corrected the pay-scale of one Awadhesh Kumar and granted pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- vide order dated 04.08.2021, who is also a LDC as to that of petitioner. The respondent –State cannot adopt pick and choose method and as such, it is a case of hostile discrimination. Further, the respondent-State in complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice, have passed the impugned order and reduced the pay-scale of the petitioner, which amounts to civil consequences. The respondent –State cannot adopt pick and choose method and as such, it is a case of hostile discrimination. Further, the respondent-State in complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice, have passed the impugned order and reduced the pay-scale of the petitioner, which amounts to civil consequences. Law is well settled on this point that any order visiting with civil or evil consequences, cannot be passed without adhering with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, without adhering to the provisions of principles of natural justice, the impugned orders have been issued, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. In a welfare State, these types of activities are not praise-worthy. Every employee of the University, is to be treated equally in similar situation. It is not when an illegality is pointed out by the Court, then only same shall be rectified by the Authorities concerned. The Higher Officials must be aware of the provisions, rules and guidelines. 7. A poor and retired employee has suffered both mentally and financially because of the action of the respondent-State. Admittedly, pay-fixation has been done by the State on the basis of recommendation of the University, but the University had never recommended the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/- in respect to the petitioner rather the University recommended the pay-scale for the petitioner as Rs.5500-9000/-, which was also accepted but later on, same was reduced in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned orders dated 12.06.2010 and Letter dated 11.11.2014 are tenable in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed and set aside. In view thereof, the respondent-State is directed to fix the scale of the petitioner as Rs.5500-9000 and fix the pension accordingly. The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits and as such, the respondents are directed to pay the same. Needless to say that the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that if any grievance is still pending, it is open for the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent –University and thereafter, the University shall recommend the State Government for further action, in accordance with law. 10. 9. It is made clear that if any grievance is still pending, it is open for the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent –University and thereafter, the University shall recommend the State Government for further action, in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation and directions, writ petition stands allowed.