Jharkhand High Court
Murari Goswami vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 October, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1 W.P.(S) No. 2154 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 2339 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 5546 OF 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2154 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 2339 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 5546 OF 2011
...............
Murari Goswami ... Petitioner [in W.P.(S) No. 2154 of 2010]
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Dy. Commissioner - cum - Chairman, Establishment Committee, Lohardaga
5. Regional Dy. Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi
6. District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga.
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 2154 of 2010]
WITH
Shambhu Kumar Rana ... Petitioner [in W.P.(S) No. 2339 of 2010]
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Dy. Commissioner - cum - Chairman, Establishment Committee, Lohardaga
5. Regional Dy. Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi
6. District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga.
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 2339 of 2010]
WITH
1. Ram Lagan Oraon
2. Mangu Oraon;
3. Rajeshwar Bhagat
4. Dhiraj Kujur
5. Garbi Oraon
6. Rameshwar Bhagat
7. Mangal Oraon
8. Ramsahay Oraon
9. Lakshmina Tirkey
10. Bande Oraon
11. Rekha Soni ... Petitioners [in W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2011]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman,
District Education Establishment Committee, Lohardaga
3. District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2011]
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
RC
2 W.P.(S) No. 2154 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 2339 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 5546 OF 2011
For the Petitioners : IN W.P.(S) No. 2154 and 2339 of 2010
Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Bharti Kumari, Advocate.
IN W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2011
Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondents: J.C. to AAG.
Ms. Sunita Kumari, JC to SC (L & C)
C.A.V. on 31/08/2017 Pronounced on 13/10/2017
Dr. S.N.Pathak, J. As common question is involved in all these writ petitions, they have been
taken up together and are decided by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar assisted by Ms. Bharti Kumari, learned counsel for
the petitioners in W.P.(S) Nos. 2154 of 2010 and 2339 of 2010 and Mr. A.K. Sahani
assisted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel in W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2011.
Respondents are represented by J.C. to AAG and J.C. to SC (L & C) respectively.
3. Petitioners are basically aggrieved by action of the respondents by which
their pay scales have been reduced to the scale of Rs.580 - 860 whereas they are
entitled for the pay scale of Rs.680 - 965 (corresponding Pay Scale of Rs.5,500 -
9,000 in the 5th pay revision) from the date of their initial appointment.
The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 2154 of 2010 and W.P.(S) No. 2339 of
2010 are aggrieved by the Memo No. 499/Lohardaga, dated 17.04.2010 whereby and
whereunder it has been ordered to grant pay scale of Rs.580 - 860 to the petitioners
from the date of their appointment on the basis of Circular No. 6022 dated
18.12.1989and Department Circular No. 998, Dated 07.06.1995, issued by the Department of Education. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay them salary on the basis of pay scale of Rs.680 - 965 (corresponding Pay Scale of Rs.5,500 - 9,000 in 5th pay revision) from the date of their initial appointment as they had been appointed as a Science Teacher.
Similarly, petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2011 have prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 1188, dated 05.08.2010 whereby it has been held that report of the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand was correct and petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.580 - 860 and have further prayed for quashing the consequential letters dated 10.08.2011 whereby direction has been made to concerned Headmaster-cum- Drawing and Disbursement Officer to assess and recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners.
4. It is submitted that on the basis of memo no. 3629, dated 20.11.1982, an advertisement dated 19.09.1984 had been published for appointment of teachers, RC 3 W.P.(S) No. 2154 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 2339 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 5546 OF 2011 including Science Teachers. It was specifically clarified in the said advertisement that in absence of trained candidates, the case of untrained candidates may be considered but after approval of the department. After completing all the formalities and interview, waiting list had been prepared. On the basis of said list, appointment letters had been issued after due approval of the District Education Establishment Committee, Lohardaga. It is further submitted that though the petitioners had been appointed as a Science Teachers, their pay scale had wrongly been mentioned in the appointment letters as Rs.535 - 765 while it should have been in the pay scale of Rs.680 - 965 meant for Untrained Science Graduate teachers. After representation of the petitioners for correction of their pay, the respondents granted them the pay scale of Untrained Science Graduate i.e. Rs.680 - 965 vide different office orders, as contained in Memo No. 1339 - 44, dated 29.08.1989; 1203 - 04, dated 03.09.1989; 1333 - 35, dated 23.10.1989 and 1391 - 94, dated 22.11.1989, which were subsequently canceled vide Memo No. 96-95 dated 06.02.1990. However, the same had been quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.01.1991 passed in CWJC No. 1990 of 1990 (R). However, vide order dated 12.04.1991, respondents again canceled the pay scale of Science Teachers granted to the petitioners but was again quashed vide order dated 11.02.1992 passed in CWJC No. 331 of 1992 (R). However, order dated 11.02.1992 was complied only after filing of contempt application.
It is stated that thereafter again respondents canceled the pay scale granted to the petitioners and this Court, vide order dated 15.02.1995, passed in CWJC No. 1061 of 1994 (R) quashed the same and further pleased to award cost upon the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents confirmed pay scale of the petitioners as Untrained Science Graduate teachers. Thereafter, in the garb of audit objection raised by the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondents issued recovery order against the petitioners, which was also quashed by this Court.
It is stated that against the decision of the Establishment Committee which was taken on the ground that at the time of appointment of petitioners in 1988, notification no. 2440, dated 18.12.1984 was in force, the petitioners again moved before the Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 924 of 2008 and this Court, on the basis of stand of the respondents in the Counter Affidavit that Circular No. 2440, dated 18.12.1984 has already been withdrawn and since the pay scale of the petitioners and others have already been settled, therefore, decision of the Establishment Committee needs review, accordingly the resolution dated 18.08.2006 had been quashed. When no order was passed pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 924 of 2008, petitioners filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 158/2010 and in order to save RC 4 W.P.(S) No. 2154 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 2339 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 5546 OF 2011 themselves from contempt proceeding, memo no. 499 Lohardaga dated 17.04.2010 had been issued wherein respondents have contended that in view of Sankalp of the Finance Department No. 6022, Dated 18.12.1989 and Department Circular No. 998, dated 07.06.1995, the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.580 - 860 from the date of their initial appointments .
It is stated that petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 2154 of 2010 and 2339 of 2010 are aggrieved by the memo no. 499 Lohardaga dated 17.04.2010, which, according to them suffers from infirmity and illegality and hence this writ petition.
It is submitted that the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2011 are aggrieved by the Memo No. 1188, dated 05.08.2010 wherein it has been held that report of the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand was correct and pay scale of the petitioners have been held to be Rs.580 - 860 and pursuant thereto, consequential letters dated 10.08.2011 has been issued directing the concerned Headmaster-cum- Drawing and Disbursement Officer to assess and recover the excess amount paid to them.
5. Mr. Bhanu Kumar as also Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the impugned orders, argued that the impugned Memo No. 499/Lohardaga, dated 17.04.2010 issued on the basis of Circular No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 and Department Circular No. 998, Dated 07.06.1995, issued by the Department of Education, is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners as they had been appointed and working on the post of Science Teacher in Middle School since the year 1988 and the respondents cannot be allowed to reopen the issue regarding appointment after lapse of more than 20 years. It is further submitted that earlier this Hon'ble Court has already quashed the orders issued by respondents regarding reduction of pay scale and as such action of the respondents amounts to circumvent the orders of this Court by which petitioners have been granted benefits of B.Sc. Trained Scale.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that Sankalp of the Finance Department bearing No. 6022, Dated 18.12.1989 is not applicable to the petitioners who had been appointed as Science Teacher in Middle School. Said Sankalp had been issued to remove anomaly created due to Upgradation of Primary School and consequently for grant of Upgraded Pay Scale to concerned teachers in light of recommendation of Utkraman Visangati Nirakaran Samittee, with a view to give them benefits of revised pay scale. Petitioners had been appointed as a Science Teacher in Middle Schools from the very beginning and no appointment of Science Teacher can be made against the post of Matric Trained teachers.
RC 5 W.P.(S) No. 2154 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 2339 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 5546 OF 2011 Learned counsel submit that the respondents are bent upon to harass the petitioners, as is evident from the several orders passed from time to time. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of wrong circular which, in no case, can be made applicable to the petitioners. The respondents have no regard to the orders of the Court and impugned order has been passed in complete violation of orders of this Court without any application of mind.
6. On the other hand counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that vide Serial 1(a) of Schedule 11 of Resolution No. 6022, dated 18.12.1989, issued by the Department of Finance, the Matric Trained/ Intermediate Trained - Untrained/ Untrained Graduate working since January, 1986 and thereafter, will get revised Pay Scale of Rs.1,200 - 2,040 (old pay scale of Rs. 580 - 860). Thereafter, vide Circular No. 998, dated 07.06.1995, it was also agreed that Graduate Untrained and Intermediate Untrained Teachers working against the Matric Trained post will get revised pay- scale. Learned counsel further submits that though various orders have been passed in the matter but there is no specific order on pay-scale and the District Level Education Establishment Committee has taken decision in accordance with law in conformity with various Circular of the Government as well as reports submitted by the Office of the Accountant General.
Learned counsel however submits that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5134 of 2001 and upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 226 of 2013, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit dated 08.08.2017. Learned counsel further submits that in view of aforesaid, petitioners are entitled for pay scale of B.Sc. Untrained Science Teachers.
7. It appears that the instant cases have a chequered history. Petitioners have approached this Court on earlier occasions also and orders had been passed in their favour. In spite of that, respondents are bent upon to harass the petitioners and in order to circumvent the orders passed by this Court, impugned orders have been passed leading to filing of instant writ petition. The issue involved in these writ petitions are no more resintegra as similar issues have already been decided in W.P. (S) No. 5134 of 2001 and upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 226 of 2013. It has been held in Arbind Bhushan Dey Vs. State of Jharkhand (Supra) that the Rules of 1993 cannot have retrospective application to defeat the vested right of the persons who have already been granted higher scale. The petitioners obviously were not at fault at any stage when these decisions were being taken. The said view has already been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
RC 6 W.P.(S) No. 2154 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 2339 OF 2010 with W.P.(S) No. 5546 OF 2011
8. Reduction in the pay scale had been done at the behest of audit objection, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.680 - 965 and accordingly in the corresponding revised scale of Rs.5,500 - 9,000. Considering decision of this Court dated 07.04.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 5279 of 2006, respondents have already fixed pay scale of the similarly situated persons in the scale of Rs.680 - 965 and as such, it can be comfortably said that the respondents have realised their mistakes and have corrected themselves by allowing pay scale of Rs.680 - 965 and consequently in the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.5,500 - 9,000. The respondents have also admitted in their supplementary counter affidavit that the petitioners are entitled for the same pay scale.
9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, all these writ petitions stand allowed. Respondents are directed to fix pay scale of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.680 - 965 [corresponding pay scale of Rs.5,500 - 9,000 in the 5th pay revision]. The impugned Memo No. 499/Lohardaga, dated 17.04.2010 in W.P.(S) No. 2154 of 2010 and W.P.(S) No. 2339 of 2010 and the order as contained in Memo No. 1188, dated 05.08.2010 in W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2011 are hereby quashed and set aside. The recovery, if any, pursuant to the impugned orders, are also hereby quashed and set aside and if any amount has already been recovered, the same is directed to be refunded to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Resultantly the writ petitions stand allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: October 13, 2017 RC RC