Jharkhand High Court
Baidyanath Labh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 10 March, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AJR 515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 1748 of 2008
Baidyanath Labh son of Late Sri Narayan Lal, resident of Edalhatu,
P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi
.... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand,
Project Building, Ranchi .... ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, JC to SCII
08/10.03.2017Supplementaryaffidavit dated 09.03.2017 of the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Challenging orders dated 14.08.2001, 13.11.2006 and 27.02.2008, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Insofar as challenge to order dated 14.08.2001 is concerned, it needs to be recorded that the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2528 of 2001 came before this Court with a prayer for grant of payscale of Rs.50008000/, however, in the said proceeding order dated 14.08.2001 was not challenged by him. A specific objection in respect of this was raised by the respondents which is reflected in order dated 03.03.2003 passed in W.P.(S) No.2528 of 2001. Evidently, challenge to order dated 14.08.2001 in the present proceeding is barred by constructive resjudicata. Orders dated 13.11.2006 and 27.02.2008 have been passed on subsequent representations of the petitioner.
4. The claim of the petitioner is that he has been denied payscale of Rs.50008000/ while another similarly situated 2 employee namely, Dr. Ranjit Kumar has been granted the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Resolution dated 08.06.1999 submits that a directly appointed Accountant is entitled for revised payscale of Rs.50008000/. Order dated 03.03.2003 in W.P.(S) No.2528 of 2001 would disclose that the respondentState took a specific stand that the said Dr. Ranjit Kumar falls under Accountant categoryiv and he was getting payscale of Rs.13202040/. The petitioner was appointed in the payscale of Rs.680965/ which was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to Rs.12001800/. In the Schedule appended to Resolution dated 08.06.1999 corresponding payscale of Rs.12001800/ is Rs.40006000/. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is getting this payscale. In the present proceeding or in any of his representations, except pleading that he is similarly situated to the said Dr. Ranjit Kumar, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor produced a document which would indicate that at the time of appointment he possessed the qualification for appointment as Senior Auditor. Only those directly appointed Accountants having Graduate qualification besides the qualification for appointment as Senior Auditor were placed in the payscale of Rs.14002600/ of which the corresponding payscale is Rs.50008000/, which is the payscale of Accountant categoryiv. The petitioner does not fulfill this criteria and while so, he is not entitled for the payscale of Rs.50008000/
5. The writ petition stands dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K./Pankaj