Jharkhand High Court
Singa Deogam vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 2 August, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(S) No. 3008 of 2016
Singa Deogam, S/o Late Begun Deogan, R/o Pampara, Barkondia, Mopasir,
Chaibasa, East Singhbhum ... Petitioner
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela Kharsawan
3. The Block Development Officer, Gamharia, Saarikela Kharsawan
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
For Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Pathak, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents : J.C. to Sr. S.C.-III
------
10/ 02.08.2017The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for granting the benefits of ACP/MACP, which has not been paid to the petitioner inspite of rendering more than 30 years of unblemished service. Further prayer has been made to fix the pay scale after granting the benefits of ACP/MACP and accordingly, fix the pension and pay the arrears accrued on account of re-fixation of scale with consequential interest.
Factual Matrix:-
The petitioner was appointed on 24.06.1974 on the post of peon in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum and after rendering more than 30 years of unblemished service, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.10.2014 from the office of Block Development Officer, Gamharia. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the entire service career of the petitioner has remained unblemished and at no point of time, he has been given any show cause or subjected to any proceeding. After superannuation, the petitioner has been paid his entire retiral benefits and his pension has also been fixed. However, all the benefits including pension has been paid at unrevised scale, which is bound to be revised upon grant of benefits of ACP/MACP. It is the further case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons have been granted the benefits of ACP/MACP but the same has not been granted to the petitioner on the ground that his service has not been confirmed and there is break in service of the petitioner.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner has been confirmed on 29.01.1985 and hence, it cannot be said that the service of the petitioner has not been confirmed and the benefits cannot be extended only on the ground that the service of the petitioner has not been confirmed. The petitioner also filed representation before the respondents-authorities for granting the benefits of ACP/MACP on the ground that his services already confirmed and there is no break in service. When nothing was done by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for granting the benefits of ACP/MACP.
Mr. D.K. Pathak, Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the respondents have illegally, arbitrarily and with malafide intentions, not granted the benefits of ACP/MACP though the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2014. Learned counsel further argues that even the services of the petitioner has been confirmed on 29.01.1985 and there is no break in service and rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground that there is break in service and non-confirmation of service is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel also argues that the petitioner has been discriminated as similarly situated persons have already been granted the same benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that non-grant of ACP/MACP, the petitioner is facing financial hardship and he has not getting the benefit of sixth pay revision because of the ACP/MACP benefits.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as no counter-affidavit has been filed, he is not in a position to controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though on earlier occasion, time was granted for filing counter-affidavit, but the same has not been filed till date. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the rejection order, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of ACP/MACP. As per the impugned order, the service of the petitioner has not been confirmed and there is break in service.
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. Though it has been mentioned in the writ petition that services of the petitioner has already been confirmed on 29.01.1985 yet the benefits of ACP/MACP has not been granted to him. There is no rule to show that on the ground of non-confirmation, the employee can be denied the benefits of ACP/MACP. Even regular promotion cannot be denied on the ground of non- confirmation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1993 (2) BLJ 13 has held that it is the respondents who are responsible for confirmation of the services of the employee and the employee cannot be allowed to suffer on the ground of non-confirmation.
In view of the aforesaid facts, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legal propositions, I hereby direct the respondent No. 3 to release the entire benefits of ACP/MACP if there is no any other legal impediment. If the amount is found payable, let the aforesaid amount be disbursed to the petitioner on the basis of grant of ACP/MACP and further fixation of pay under revised pay-scale be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) punit