Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Ravindra Kumar Ravikar on 24 June, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 158 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, at Telephone Bhawan, Near Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Planning cum Finance Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, at Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO
& PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
5. District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, PO-GPO, PS-Sadar,
District-East Singhbhum
6. District Education Officer, Latehar, PO-GPO, PS-Sadar, District-Latehar
7. District Education Officer, Dhanbad, PO-GPO, PS-Sadar, District-
Dhanbad
8. The Incharge Headmaster, B.P.M +2 High School, Burma Mines, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, PO & PS-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
9. The Headmaster, R.K. +2 High School, Chandwa, Latehar, PO & PS-
Chandwa, District-Latehar
10. The Headmaster, G.N.M +2 High School, Katrasgarh, PO & PS-
Katrasgarh, District-Dhanbad ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Ravindra Kumar Ravikar, aged about 52 years, s/o Sri Nathuni Yadav, r/o
Jhahura, PO-Lawkaha, PS-Lawkaha, District-Supaul, State-Bihar, presently
posted in B.P.M. +2 School, Burma Mines, Jamshedpur, PO & PS-Burma
Mines, District-East Singhbhum
2. Sujit Kumar, aged about 53 years, s/o late Ram Nandan Prasad, r/o
Mohalla Horilganj, PO & PS & District-Jahanbad, State-Bihar, presently
posted at R.K. +2 High School, Chandwa, Latehar, PO & PS-Chandwa,
District-Latehar
3. Rajiv Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years, s/o Shri Ram Lagan Singh, r/o
village-Ratanpur, PO-Begusarai, PS-Ratanpur, District-Begusarai, State-
Bihar, presently posted at G.N.M. +2 High School, Katrasgarh, PO & PS-
Katrasgarh, District-Dhanbad. ... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 164 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of
School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004
1 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning cum Finance, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand-834004
4. The District Education Officer, Bokaro, Office at District Education
Office, Police Campus, Room No. 21, Camp-2, PO & PS-Bokaro, District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand-827001 ... ... Appellants
Versus
1.Murari Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, s/o late Shukul Singh, r/o Plot
No.23, Lohanchal, PO & PS-Sector-12, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand-827012
2. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, aged about 57 years, s/o late Suresh Prasad, r/o 414,
Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Sector-12, District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand-827012 ... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 171 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Secondary Education and Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Telephone Bhawan, Near
Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Planning cum Finance Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi
4. The Director, Secondary Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Telephone Bhawan, Near Project
Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
5. District Education Officer, Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
6. Principal R. Mitra, 10+2 School, Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar, District-
Deoghar ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Arun Kumar, s/o late Chandrika Singh, aged about 57 years, r/o V.I.P
Chowk Brijbhan Lane, Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
2. Indradeo Prasad Yadav, s/o late Saudagar Yadav, aged about 57 years, r/o
Lal Kothi, Purnandaha, Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 179 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Director, Secondary Education Directorate, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Uday Shankar, aged about 58 years, s/o late R.D.P Sandwar, r/o Sukhdeo
Nagar, Ratu Road, PS-Sukhdeonagar, PO-Hehal, District-Ranchi
2 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases
2. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 55 years, s/o late Bhupendra Prasad, r/o Flat
No.2-A, Bhagwati Niwas Apartment, Bali Bagicha, Harmu, PO-Doranda,
PS-Argora, District-Ranchi ... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 188 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, PO+PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, PO +PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi
5. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO+PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi
6. The District Education Officer, PO+PS+District-Hazaribagh
7. The District Education Officer, PO+PS+District-Ranchi
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Prabhat Kumar, aged about 62 years, s/o Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Sinha,
presently r/o 181/C, Goutam Budha Marg, PO & PS-Bariyatu, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Laxmi Kumari, w/o Sri Prbhat Kumar worked at +2 Government zgirls
School, Bariatu, r/o 181/C, PO & PS-Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
(Now deceased), Her Legal Heirs substituted vide order dated.... passed in
I.A. No.... who are as follows:-
2A. Nolay Mitash, aged about 34 years
2B. Chaitanya Mitash, aged about 32 years,
Both sons of Sri Prabhat Kumar, presently r/o 181/C, Goutam Budha
Marg, PO & PS-Bariyatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 217 of 2024
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi
3. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at
Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
4. Director (Secondary Education), School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, PO &
PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
5. District Education Officer, Ranchi, having its office at Ranchi, PO Court
Compound, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi
6. District Education Officer, Dumka, PO +PS+District-Dumka
3 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases
7. District Education Officer, Sahebganj, PO & PS-Sahebganj, District-
Sahebganj
8. District Education Officer, Gumla, PO & PS-Gumla, District-Gumla
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar, aged about 52 years, s/o Shri Sita Ram Prasad, r/o Rani
Bagan, PO & PS-Bariatu, District-Ranchi
2. Binay Kumar Thakur, aged about 54 years, s/o late Arjun Thakur, r/o Jay
Prakash Nagar, PO-Boreya, PS-Kanke, District-Ranchi
3. Ram Kumar Gautam, aged about 57 years, s/o Dr. Kapildeo Prasad, r/o
A-201, K.P. Enclave, Bandhgari, Deepatoli, PO-Bariatu, PS-Sadar, District-
Ranchi
4. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, aged about 51 years, s/o Sri Baikunth Narayan
Singh, presently residing at Plus Two Zila School, Dumka, PO & PS-Dumka,
District-Dumka [Permanent Resident of Sundarpur, PO-Bahachowki, PS-
Bahachowki, District-Munger (Bihar)]
... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 219 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Telephone Bhawan, Near Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO
& PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Planning cum Finance Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, at Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO
& PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
5. The District Education Officer, Giridih, having its office at Giridih Old
Jail Campus, PO, PS & District-Giridih
6. District Education Officer, Latehar, having its office at Block B Latehar,
PO, PS & District-Latehar ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Bidyut Kumar Ojha, aged about 54 years, s/o late Dulal Chand Ojha, r/o
at Latehar, PO, PS & District-Latehar
2. Kumar Pawel Raman, aged about 54 years, s/o Hari Ram Narain Sinha
Raman, r/o New Bargadda, Giridih, PO, PS & District-Giridih
3. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, aged about 54 years, s/o Shri Ram Dhani
Choudhary, r/o Panch Mandir Gali, Makatpur, PO, PS & District-Giridih
... ... Respondents
4 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II
Mr. Mohammad Asghar, AC to Sr. SC-II
For the Respondents : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwari, Advocate
[in L.P.A No. 171 of 2024 for resp. nos. 1&2]
Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Sameer Sahay, Advocate
[in L.P.A Nos. 158, 217 & 219 of 2024]
Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate
[in L.P.A Nos. 158 & 164 of 2024 for resp. nos. 1&2]
--------
24th June 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J This batch of Letters Patent Appeals is directed against the common order pronounced by the writ Court in a batch of writ petitions vide W.P.(S) No. 3894 of 2019, W.P.(S) No. 2491 of 2009, W.P.(S) No. 4051 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 4145 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 6345 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 437 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 4366 of 2021 and W.P.(S) No. 1196 of 2022.
2. The issue before the writ Court was whether the Physical Instructors of +2 schools are entitled for grade pay of Rs.4800/-. The State of Jharkhand set up a stand that the Physical Instructors of +2 schools shall be provided grade pay of Rs.4200/- and not of Rs.4800/- if they do not possess the qualification prescribed by the Central Government. The further case pleaded by the State of Jharkhand was that the Physical Instructors were appointed under the erstwhile State of Bihar and presently their counter-parts in the State of Bihar are getting grade pay of Rs.4200/- and, therefore, parity and uniformity should be maintained in the pay scale and grade pay of the Physical Instructors working in the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. The writ Court referred to a decision in W.P.(S) 2696 of 2009 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 496 of 2015 and formed an opinion that it was bound by the previous judgments of this Court. The writ Court also referred to "R. T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State" AIR 1937 PC 27, "State of M.P v. Mansinghra" AIR 1958 MP 1413, "H. C. Suman and Anr. v. Rehabilitation Ministry 5 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., New Delhi & Ors." (1991) 4 SCC 485, "S. Nagraj & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr." 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595, "Kuleshwar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors." (2013) 12 SCC 508 and "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradip" (2020) 11 SCC 144 and held that the successor in office of the Director, Secondary Education had no power to review the decision of his predecessor. The writ Court further held that administrative circulars and government resolutions are subservient to legislative mandate and cannot run contrary to the Constitutional norms and statutory principles. The writ Court therefore held that the Physical Instructors are entitled for grade pay of Rs.4800/- and issued a direction for consequential payment of arrears of salary and other benefits to them.
3. Briefly stated, the programme of vocational education was introduced in the National Policy of Education, 1986. The State of Bihar implemented the policy decision of the Central Government and 25 vocational courses in six major areas were introduced in a hundred and forty-eight +2 schools. As per the staffing pattern for the vocational course, a provision for three Laboratory Assistants for vocational courses and other faculty staff, LDC etc. were prescribed by the Directorate of Education, NCERT. The qualification of the Vocational Teachers/Instructors was equivalent to the full-time teachers appointed by the Government. The State of Jharkhand has brought on record a document issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Seva Board which gives details of 25 advertisements for appointment of full-time Physical Instructors under 25 different trades. The said document is the advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Physical Instructors whereunder the minimum educational qualification was prescribed. This is the stand of the respondents that they possessed higher qualification of Post Graduation in their respective stream and that is not controverted by the State of Jharkhand before the writ Court. In a situation like this, it has to be inferred in law that the advertisement at page no. 29 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20th June 2024 was issued 6 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases following the Central Government guidelines about the educational qualification for appointment on the post of Physical Instructors.
4. However, what is being contended by Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II is that this Court has held in uncertain terms that the Physical Instructors are not full-time teachers and therefore cannot be given grade pay of Rs. 4800/-. The learned Sr. SC-II referred to the decisions in W.P.(S) No. 4200 of 2008 and L.P.A No. 84 of 2018 to emphasize that the Physical Instructors have not been found eligible for appointment on the post of Headmaster. Plainly speaking, the submission made on behalf of the State of Jharkhand is that the previous decision of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2696 of 2009 which was affirmed in L.P.A No. 496 of 2015 is not a binding precedent. To lay support to his submission, Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II referred to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Government of NCT Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr." 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1092 and emphasized that this Court may take a different view and interfere in this matter as the issue raised by the State of Jharkhand is of public importance. Challenging the writ Court's direction, Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II would further submit that the case pleaded by the respondent-Physical Instructors was misconceived and factually incorrect inasmuch as there is no Central Government guidelines prescribing grade pay of Rs.4800 for the Physical Instructors; this plea is just opposite what was contended before the writ Court. On 13 th June 2024, this Court passed the following order:
"In the resolution dated 28th February 2009 of the Finance Department, revised pay structure of different class of teachers has been provided under paragraph no.7 and a comparative chart has been provided under paragraph no.8. The stand of the State of Jharkhand is based on a Note inserted after serial no.153 of the comparative chart which reads as under:
"Note: Regarding all Instructors/Vocational teachers in the different training colleges/10+2 schools at present drawing pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 for such categories corresponding new pay scale/grade pay (4800) will be applicable specifically on fulfillment of recruitment qualification as mentioned in the Central Government guidelines for Vocational teachers/Instructors if not then only Rs.4200 grade pay is admissible."
2. The aforementioned Central Government guidelines on the basis of which the writ petitioners were given grade pay of Rs.4200 is not on record.
7 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases3. Litigation in this regard has spanned over about a decade but the materials on record including the orders passed by this Court in a number of cases also do not refer to any such Central Government guidelines on the basis of which the writ petitioners can be given grade pay of Rs. 4200.
4. However, to provide one opportunity to the State of Jharkhand to bring on record such Central Government guidelines on the basis of which the writ petitioners were granted grade pay of Rs.4200, hearing of these Letters Patent Appeals is adjourned for 19th June 2024 to be listed under the heading "Final Disposal"."
5. To begin with, we would indicate that this batch of Letters Patent Appeals overlooks the latin maxim Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation. If this is the case of the State of Jharkhand that there is no Central Government guidelines which provide higher pay grade of Rs.4800/- for the Physical Instructors, the State of Jharkhand was required to produce before the writ Court a copy of the Central Government guidelines under which appointments were made by the erstwhile State of Bihar. Just to recapitulate, about 15 years in the past a decision was rendered by the writ Court in W.P.(S) 2696 of 2009 and analogous cases and, at that point in time, the State of Jharkhand had set up a stand to the effect that if the Physical Instructors appointed in +2 schools fulfill the qualification as prescribed by the Central Government they would be entitled to grade pay of Rs.4800/-. Sadly, the State of Jharkhand has now taken a contrary stand; apparently, just to oppose the rightful claim of the respondents.
6. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II referred to the order dated 20th October 2017 passed by the Director, Secondary Education at page no. 178 of the paper book and First Schedule to the Notification dated 29th August 2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure); by this Notification, the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were notified. The stand put forth by the State of Jharkhand is that the Physical Instructors for whom no permanent post was created by the State of Jharkhand shall be entitled for corresponding grade pay to their revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 (unrevised Rs.5000-150-8000).
7. Least to say, the State of Jharkhand has adopted an unfair stand and in fact changed its stand at different stage of the litigation. The Central 8 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 are certainly not applicable in case of the teachers appointed in +2 schools. There is a separate rule framed by the State of Jharkhand for appointment of the teachers in +2 schools and it is not demonstrated before this Court that the teachers appointed in +2 schools are not getting grade pay of Rs.4800/-. The "Note" appended below serial no. 153 of the chart produced by the State of Jharkhand at page no. 77 vide Annexure-5 of the paper book provides that the Instructors/Vocational Teachers who are drawing pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 shall be entitled for grade pay of Rs.4800/- on their fulfilling the qualification under the Central Government guidelines for the Vocational Teachers/Instructors otherwise they shall be given grade pay of Rs.4200/-. Again we need to record that this is not the case pleaded by the State of Jharkhand that the Physical Instructors who are the respondents in the present proceeding do not possess the educational qualification for appointment of such Instructors/Teachers under the Central Government guidelines.
8. The litigation which came to this Court in the year 2009 as to entitlement of Physical Instructors to grade pay of Rs.4800 spanned over 15 years and till date the State of Jharkhand has not brought on record any indisputable document to establish that the respondents do not possess educational qualification under the Central Government guidelines. The understanding of the Director, Higher Education that the corresponding pay scale under First Schedule of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 shall apply to the respondents is clearly misconceived and precious time of the Court has been wasted in a futile litigation. The writ Court rightly held that it was bound by the previous decisions of the Court because it is necessary to maintain discipline in the judicial system. In "Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator-General of W.B." AIR 1960 SC 936 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start over-ruling one another's decisions the certainty in the system shall disappear.
9 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases9. For the forgoing reasons, these Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed.
10. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 24th June 2024 Amit N.A.F.R 10 L.P.A No. 158 of 2024 and batch cases