Jharkhand High Court
(C) Raina Kashyap vs The Chief Secretary on 14 May, 2020
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3708 of 2016
.......
1 (a) Ranjana Kashyap
1. (b) Rishu Kashyap
1. (c) Raina Kashyap ... ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s -
1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Dept. of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project bhavan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Dept. of Personnel, Rajbhasha & Administrative Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha through its Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Ranchi
5. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi ... RESPONDENTS With W.P.(S) No.4299 of 2016 .......
Tarkeshwar Jha ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s -
1. The Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha through its Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Campus, Ranchi
2. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Vidhan Sabha Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal, Department of Planning and Finance, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Special Secretary to Government, Department of Planning and Finance, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi ... RESPONDENTS With W.P.(S) No.4663 of 2016 .......
Gulam Mohammad Sarfraz ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s -
1. Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha through its Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Campus, Ranchi
2. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Vidhan Sabha Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal, Department of Planning and Finance, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Special Secretary to Government, Department of Planning and Finance, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi ... RESPONDENTS With W.P.(S) No.4436 of 2016 .......
Rakesh Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s -
1. Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha through its Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Campus, Ranchi 2
2. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Vidhan Sabha Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal, Department of Planning and Finance, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Special Secretary to Government, Department of Planning and Finance, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi ... RESPONDENTS .......
CORAM: - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-Vidhan Sabha : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
For the Respondent-State Mr. H.K. Mehta, AAG
Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr.SC-III
.......
22/ 14.05.2020 Since the identical issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they
are being disposed of by this common order.
W.P.(S) No.3708 of 2016
Prayer: The Petitioners are legal heirs of the original writ petitioner (since
deceased). The original writ petitioner has approached this Court for quashment of Resolution No. 1366 dated 03.06.2016 so far deceased (original writ petitioner) is concerned, whereby and whereunder, the respondents have passed the order of reduction in pay scale from Pay Band-IV to Pay Band-III and also consequential orders emanating from it i.e. Letter No. 1562 dated 10.06.2016 by which respondent No.5 has been informed to issue pay slip in accordance with the aforesaid resolution. The petitioners have further prayed for directing the respondents for restoration of pay scale of the father/husband of the petitioners, which was being received.
Factual Matrix:-
The short facts of the case is that the original writ petitioner was appointed on 28.06.1990 as a Reporter (Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 in the erstwhile State of Bihar. He was promoted to the post of Senior Reporter in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200/-. After bifurcation of the State, his services was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Reporter w.e.f 05.05.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-375-16,500/- and further promoted to the post of Director (Reporting) w.e.f. 26.09.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.14,300-400-18,300/- which is equivalent to the pay scale of Rs. 37,400-8700- 67,000/- in Sixth Pay Commission in the State of Jharkhand and as such, the original writ petitioner was getting the said pay scale w.e.f. 26.09.2008. It is further the case of the original petitioner that vide Resolution dated 05.07.2005, cadre of the 3 petitioner was restructured in view of the decision taken by the Pad Varg Committee in its meeting dated 06.06.2005. The recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission was approved vide Resolution No. 852 dated 04.03.2014 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and this approval was given on the recommendation of Pad Varg Samiti and Letter No. 2055 dated 18.06.2009 of the Finance Department and as such, salary of the employees under 6th Pay Revision was finally approved on the recommendation of the Pad Varg Samittee on 04.03.2014. However, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Hon'le Speaker sitting with the Officers of Finance Department and in the said meeting, decision was taken to abolish some post and also scale down the salary of the employees working in the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide decision dated 26.05.2016. Thereafter, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat came with the Resolution vide Memo No.1366 dated 30.06.2016 by which the scale of the original petitioner was reduced from Pay Band-IV to Pay Band-III without any show cause or without any notice, which is under challenge. Accordingly, consequential order in view of the aforesaid Resolution, as contained in Memo No. 1562 dated 10.06.2016 was issued by which the Accountant General was intimated to issue pay slip in the revised pay scale to the petitioner, which is also under challenge. Aggrieved by the same, the original writ petitioner has made representation, but no heed was paid.W.P.(S) No.4299 of 2016
Prayer: The petitioner has approached this Court for quashment of decision contained in letter No.6/S.5 (Pay Revision) 05/2009 (Vi.) dated 26.05.2016, so far it relates to present petitioner, whereby petitioner has been reverted to lower grade pay i.e. from the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+6600 GP to 9300-34800+4800 GP. Further, prayer has been made for quashment of Resolution No. 1366 dated 03.06.2016 so far as present petitioner is concerned, whereby and whereunder, the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced to a lower pay scale. Further, prayer has been made to hold and declare that the Respondents have no power and jurisdiction to pass the order of reduction of salary of the petitioner without holding a regular departmental proceeding/enquiry.
Factual Matrix: The short facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 29.10.1987 to the post of Peon by Bihar Vidhan Sabha. After rendering 13 years of satisfactory service, he appeared for a Limited Department Examination and having been declared successful, appointed to the post of Routine Clerk (Dincharya Lipik) in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- vide Notification dated 31.03.2000 by the then Bihar Vidhan Sabha. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, his services 4 was allocated to the State of Jharkhand in the year 2004. The petitioner joined at Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha on 01.01.2005, which was accordingly, accepted. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide Resolution dated 05.07.2005, the full cadre strength of Preshan Savanrg (Issue Cadre) has been explained by way of amendment in Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2003. The petitioner was promoted to the post Deputy Superintendent from the post of Routine Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- and vide notification dated 07.09.2005, the said pay-scale was allowed to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.08.2005. Subsequently, in terms of the aforesaid Rules, he was further promoted to the post of Superintendent (Issue) in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-, which was allowed w.e.f. 05.05.2006. Further, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Superintendent (Issue) from the post of Superintendent (Issue) in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- vide notification dated 06.06.2008. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 6th Pay Revision was adopted by the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha on 28.03.2009 and upon recommendations made by the Pad Varg Samiti, the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha constituted a Pay Revision Committee vide Notificated dated 23.10.2013 and the Pay Revision Committee recommended for the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100+6600 GP for the post of Deputy Chief Superintendent in its report dated 20.10.2013. However, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Speaker sitting with the Officers of Finance Department and in the said meeting, decision was taken to abolish some post and also scale down the salary of the employees working in the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide decision dated 26.05.2016, which is under challenge. Thereafter, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat came with the Resolution vide Memo No.1366 dated 03.06.2016, which is also under challenge, by which the scale of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.15,600-39,100+6600 GP to Rs.9300-34800+4800GP and it was also stated that said post would be abolished after the retirement of the employees holding the said posts. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has made representation, but no heed was paid. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred.
W.P.(S) No.4663 of 2016Prayer: The petitioner has approached this Court for quashment of decision dated 26.05.2016, whereby petitioner has been reverted to lower grade pay i.e. from the grade pay of Rs.7600 to 5400 GP. Further, prayer has been made for quashment of Resolution No. 1366 dated 03.06.2016 so far as present petitioner is concerned, whereby and whereunder, the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced to a lower 5 pay scale i.e. from the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+7600 GP to 9300-34800+4800 GP. Further, prayer has been made to hold and declare that the Respondents have no power and jurisdiction to pass the order of reduction of Grade Pay of the petitioner without holding a regular departmental proceeding/enquiry.
Factual Matrix The short facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 01.02.2007 to the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer by Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. On 26.03.2008, the pay scale of the petitioner was upgraded from 5500-9000/- to Rs.6500-10,500/-. The services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 06.02.2009 vide order dated 03.06.2009. The petitioner was promoted to the post Public Relation Officer from the post of Assistant Public Relation officer vide order dated 12.10.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600- 39,100/- + 6600/- GP. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 6th Pay Revision was adopted by the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha w.e.f. 28.03.2009 and upon recommendations made by the Pad Varg Samiti, the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha constituted a Pay Revision Committee vide Notification dated 23.10.2013. The Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha upon recommendation made by the Pad Varg Samiti and in light of Rules, 2003 issued a notification dated 04.03.2014, whereby permission was granted to create one post of Chief Public Relation Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+7600/-GP. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 11.04.2014, petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Chief Public Relation Officer in the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/-+7600 GP. However, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Speaker sitting with the Officers of Finance Department and in the said meeting and vide vide decision dated 26.05.2016, a decision was taken that the post of Chief Public Relation Officer would be abolished and the petitioner would be absorbed on the post of Public Relation Officer. The pay scale of the petitioner was also reduced from 15,600-39,100+7600 GP to a pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100+5400 GP, which is under challenge. Thereafter, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat came with the Resolution vide Memo No.1366 dated 03.06.2016, which is also under challenge, by which the single post of CPRO held by the petitioner was abolished and he was absorbed on the post of PRO and his pay scale was reduced from the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100+7600 GP to a much lower pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+4800 GP. However, earlier the recommendation was to grant the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+5400 GP to the petitioner in light of special circumstances but for reasons best known to the respondents, he has been reverted to a much lower pay scale. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred.
6 W.P.(S) No.4436 of 2016Prayer: The petitioner has approached this Court for quashment of decision dated 26.05.2016, whereby petitioner has been reverted to lower grade pay i.e. from the grade pay of Rs.6600 to 4200 GP. Further, prayer has been made for quashment of Resolution No. 1366 dated 03.06.2016 so far as present petitioner is concerned, whereby and whereunder, the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced to a lower pay scale i.e. from the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+6600 GP to 9300-34800+4200 GP. Further, prayer has been made to hold and declare that the Respondents have no power and jurisdiction to pass the order of reduction of salary/post of the petitioner without holding a regular departmental proceeding/enquiry.
Factual Matrix: The short facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 01.02.2007 to the post of Supervisor (Garden) by Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. On 26.03.2008, the pay scale of the petitioner was enhanced from 5500-9000/- to Rs.6500-10,500/-. The services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 06.02.2009 vide order dated 03.06.2009. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Supervisor Garden from the post of Garden Supervisor vide order dated 12.10.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- + 6600/- GP. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 6th Pay Revision was adopted by the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha w.e.f. 28.03.2009 and upon recommendations made by the Pad Varg Samiti, the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha constituted a Pay Revision Committee vide Notification dated 23.10.2013. The Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha upon recommendation made by the Pad Varg Samiti implemented the recommendations of the 6th Pay Revision Committee and as against the post of the petitioner, a pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100+6600 GP was mentioned. However, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Speaker sitting with the Officers of Finance Department and in the said meeting and vide vide decision dated 26.05.2016, a decision was taken that the post of Deputy Chief Supervisor Garden would be abolished and the petitioner would be absorbed on the post of Supervisor Garden. The pay scale of the petitioner was also reduce from 15,600-39,100+6600 GP to a pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+4200 GP, which is under challenge. Thereafter, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat came with the Resolution vide Memo No.1366 dated 03.06.2016, which is also under challenge, by which the post held by the petitioner was abolished and he was absorbed on the post of Supervisor and his pay scale was reduced from the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100+7600 GP to a much lower pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+4200 GP. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred.
7Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.3708 of 2016 strenuously urges that there is no recommendation of Pad Varg Samittee for reducing the salary of the petitioner (since deceased), which is evident from recommendation of the Pad Varg Samittee dated 24.01.2017. The promotional post of Director (Reporting) has never been held illegal and the post of Director (Reporting) is equivalent to the post of Joint Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha. The respondents have adopted pick and choose method of pay fixation for its employees. He further argues that only three promotional avenues are available to the Reporting Cadre. Referring to the similar posts in Orissa Assembly and in the Houses of Parliament, it is argued that petitioner was withdrawing the same pay-scale as that of their counter-part aforesaid Assembly as well as Parliament of India, prior to issuance of impugned orders. It is further argued that the other co-employees of the petitioner, who joined as Assistants in Unified Bihar were getting lower pay-scale than the petitioner but after the bifurcations of the State of Bihar, they joined the Vidhan Sabha and are getting the salary on the same pay band as that of the petitioner. Further, in view of information dated 15.09.2017 given under RTI Act, 2005, it is clear that as per Agenda No.2 alteration of the service condition of the presently working employees of the Vidhan Sabha was not to be taken, but the said decision is applied to Assistant Cadre only and post of the Director (Reporting) though abolished with the attached salary cannot be downgraded or reduced to the disadvantage of the petitioner that too when the original petitioner was to retire in October, 2020. For establishing his contention, reliance was placed on several judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as follows:
I. S.S. Ranade Vs Union of India & Ors.1
II. Dharam Pal Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana2
III. Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani3
Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in rest of the cases submits that the action of the respondents in reducing the salary as well as placing some of the petitioners in lower rank is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. He further stated that in exercise of power under Article 187(3) of the Constitution of India, due autonomy is granted to the Secretariat of the State 1 (1995) 4 SCC 462 2 2017 (4) JLJR 30 (SC) 3 (2008) 9 SCC 242 8 Legislature in the matter of recruitment and fixation of pay scale of the Service Condition of its employees. The Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2003 has been framed under Article 187(3) and in so far as the salary of the Secretariat Staffs are concerned, one Pad-Varg Samiti under the Chairmanship of the Minister, Finance had been directed to be constituted. The Pad-Varg Samiti is defined and is also empowered to make requisition for extra budgetary allocation from the State Government in terms of requirements which confers complete autonomy to the Committee in the matter of fixation of pay scale of the Secretariat Employees. Learned counsel further submits that the promotion granted to the petitioners which has been duly acted upon and salary and other allowances attached with posts are allowed by the respondents and as such, the said pay scale and rank cannot be reduced by the Department of Finance in exercise of Supervisory powers and as corrective measures. Learned counsel further argues that order having civil consequences in relation to reduction of scale as well as rank has been passed in complete violation of principle of natural justice. The promotion to a higher post employs promotion to a higher pay and the pay scale of the petitioners cannot be reduced in absence of the promotion being disturbed in accordance with law. The State Government / Department of Finance in Supervisory power cannot interfere in the matter of fixation of pay scale of Secretariat Staff which is under the authority and jurisdiction of Pad-Varg Samiti. The decision of the Pad-Varg Samiti dated 24.01.2017 is very clear on that point that there shall be no change in the Service Condition of the present employees and it has never approved any reduction in the pay scale of its employees as proposed by the Department of Planning and Finance.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel and Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel jointly argue that that Jharkhand Vidhan-Sabha Secretariat came with the resolution passed vide Memo no. 1366 dated 03.6.16 whereby the salary of the petitioners was reduced to lower grade pay and some of the petitioners were reverted in lower rank of post, without any show cause or without any notice and by illegally interpreting the contents of the resolution No. 852 dated 4.3.14, which was approved by the Pad Varg Samiti and as such, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The respondents cannot reduce the rank and salary of the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which entails the civil consequences. The Hon'ble Speaker is bound to act on the recommendation of Pad Varg Samiti before interfering with the service condition as per the Rule. The department of Finance is the watch dog of the State Government in so far as the 9 financial matters are concerned, but Finance Department cannot go against the norms and relevant rules and constitutional provisions. The petitioners are getting salary attached to their respective post since long, so their salary cannot be reduced on the verge of their retirement.
On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-Vidhan Sabha Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Raman, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that all these writ petitions have become infructuous since the very argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding approval by the Pad Varg Committee and as the Pad Varg Committee in its meeting dated 24.01.2017 has approved the Resolution dated 03.06.2016, ground of the petitioner does not survive. In the instant cases promotion/demotion or enhancement/ reduction of Pay Scale is not the issue, the only issue involved in these writ petition is that what should be the pay-scale on account of extension of benefits of recommendations of 6th Pay Revision. He further submits that the petitioners are employees of the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha and all are getting a Pay Scale admissible to the post held by them. The Pay Scale was to be revised since the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha took a decision to implement the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision. Referring to Rule 7 of the >kj[k.M fo/kkulHkk lfpoky; (HkrhZ ,oa lsok 'krsZ) la'kks/ku fu;ekoyh 2017, he submits that two things have to be taken into consideration, which are relevant for the issues in question that firstly, the Authority is the Padvarg Samiti; and Secondly, the Pay Scale for each post shall be the same which is mentioned in the schedule of the Rule and as such, it was necessary to look into the Schedule which shows that many posts were abolished and in many cases number of posts were reduced in order to implement the recommendations of 6th Pay Revision. In the post which were abolished where to the employees are working and in cases where the number of posts were reduced, they are also employees working and in order to protect the working employees, it was provided from the remarks column of the Schedule that the employees are working in the post which have been abolished or in the post which have been reduced and the provision is that the working employees shall continue to hold the post so long they are holding the post and the post shall automatically abolished or reduced once the employees leaves the post on account of promotion or retirement. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that the said Rule is not under challenge and therefore, the petitioners cannot ask for a higher Pay Scale than 10 what is mentioned in the Schedule as their pay scale have been fixed as per the Schedule.
Referring to the several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, learned Sr. counsel argues that Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha vide Office Order dated 28.03.2009 adopted the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision. Thereafter, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha fixed the pay of the employees and sent the same to the Finance Department of State Government, but the same was not approved. Subsequently, re-pay fixation was made and sent to Finance Department, but the same was also not approved and as such, though the decision to implement the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision was taken in the year, 2009, but the matter was delayed and pay scales were not revised. Such delay caused dissatisfaction and unrest among the employees and for this reason, the Padvarg Samiti vide resolution/notification dated 04.03.2014 fixed pay scale which was interim in nature, required the approval of Finance Department. Admittedly, the pay scale, which was fixed by the Padvarg Samiti vide Resolution/Notification No. 04.03.2014 was interim in nature subject to the approval of the Finance Department of State Government. Finally, decision was taken vide Resolution No. 1366 dated 03.06.2016 and by taking a final decision the pay scale was finalized and the post were restructured (many post were abolished and in many cases the post were reduced) and the petitioners accepting the same given an undertaking that in case of excess payment detected at a later stage, it shall be refunded or adjusted against the future payment.
Learned Sr. counsel for the respondents submits that State is the watchdog in the financial matter and any pay-scale of the State employees has to be approved by Finance Department. As the pay-scale was fixed without consent of the Finance Department vide resolution/notification dated 04.03.2014 and also the fact lost sight that the employees of the State Government are getting some other pay scale, whereas the employees of the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha were given higher pay- scale. This was anomalous in nature and it was bound to be rationalized and therefore, a High Level Meeting under the Chairmanship of Speaker alongwith other officials was held on 23.08.2016 which finally took the shape of Resolution No. 1366 dated 03.06.2016 and as such, it is comfortably said that the correction in the pay scales of the petitioners are not penal rather corrective in nature. The respondent- State in its counter-affidavit has stated that the hierarchy of post, pay scale and grade pay of the employees were fixed by Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha without consent of the Finance Department, therefore, it was rectified. He further argues that the Padvarg 11 Samiti in its meeting dated 24.01.2017 approved the Resolution No.1366 dated 03.06.2016 and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference.
Grounds for non-interference:
i. These writ petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the action of the respondents-Authorities in passing the impugned order, without approval of the Pad Varg Samiti, but the said grievance of the petitioners appears to be redressed in view of the fact that the Pad Varg Samiti has already given its approval on 24.01.2017 for adaptation of revised pay-scale to the employees working in the establishment of Vidhan Sabha of Jharkhand.
ii. Admittedly, the pay scale, which was fixed by the Padvarg Samiti vide Resolution/Notification No. 04.03.2014 was interim in nature subject to approval of the Finance Department of State Government and subsequent thereto, final decision was taken by the Competent Authority, whereby decision of restructuring the post and pay-scale has been taken by removing the existing pay anomaly and as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
iii. Rule 7 of the >kj[k.M fo/kkulHkk lfpoky; (HkrhZ ,oa lsok 'krsZ) la'kks/ku fu;ekoyh 2017 specifically talks about the fixation of pay and salary of its employees by the Competent Authority i.e. Pad Varg Samiti and in exercise of said power, Pad Varg Samiti has recommended for restructuring of posts and pay-scale of the employees, working in the establishment of Vidhan Sabha of Jharkhand, which was later on given assent by Her Excellency the Governor of Jharkhand and in absence of any challenge thrown to the said Amended Rule, 2017, these writ petitions are not maintainable.
iv. The necessary corrective measures were taken by the respondents as similar persons holding equivalent posts in other Govt. Institution viz. Secretariat of the State were getting lower pay-scale and as such, to bring the uniformity in the pay-scale, the corrective measures were taken by the Finance Department and approved by the Pad Varg Samiti, which cannot be said to be reduction in the pay-scale.12
v. The petitioners are getting the pay-scale for which they were entitled as per said Amended Rule, 2017 and if the pay-scale fixed erroneously, the respondents are always at liberty to correct the same, in accordance with law and the said action of the respondents cannot be said to be improper and illegal.
vi. Pursuant to Rule 3 and 18 of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service ) Rule, 2003 (as amended in 2017), a meeting of Pad Varg Samittee was convened on 24.01.2017 and after taking approval of the Pad Varg Samittee, the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule, 2003 has already been amended over which the Hon'ble Governor, State of Jharkhand has given Her assent too and after the approval, the amended Rule was notified vide Notification No. 910 dated 19.04.2017. Since there is approval of the Pad Varg Samiti as well as assent of the Hon'ble Governor of the State of Jharkhand for amendment in Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule, 2003 by which the hierarchy of post, pay scale and grade pay of the employees of the respondent-Assembly was finally determined. As the said Amended Rule is in exercise of power given under Article 187 (3) of the Constitution of India and as such, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be contrary to the Rule.
vii. The pay-scale of the employees, drawing salary from the Government Exchequer is always subject to approval of the Finance Department. The State is always at liberty to take corrective steps if there appears to be any pay anomaly. In the instant cases, at the time of implementation of recommendation of 6th Pay Revision, it was found that there was pay anomaly and as such, in order to rationalize the same, a High Level Committee under the Chairmanship of the Speaker of the Assembly with the representatives of the Department of Planning-cum-Finance was convened to bring uniformity of the pay-scale at par with the other employees working under the State Government and as such, the action of the respondents are corrective measure and not penal.
viii. Regarding the abolition of posts and the pay-scale, it has already been clarified, which is also mentioned in the Schedule at Column 10 of the 13 Schedule to the Rule. The clarification was "orZeku fLFkrh esa dk;Zjr dehZ ij dksbZ izHkko ugh iMsx+ kA buds lsok fuo`rh ds mijkUr gh vuwlpw h essa of.kZr in rd gh flfer jg tk;sxAsa and the decision was orZeku fLFkrh essa dk;Zjr fdlh Hkh Js.kh ds dehZ ij dksbZ izfrdqy izHkko ugh iM+sxkA buds lsokfuoZr ds mijkUr gh vuwlwph essa o.khZr in rd gh flfer jg tk;sxsaA" and as such, very comfortably it can be inferred that abolition or reduction of posts will not affect the employees working on the said posts. If an employee is working on the post which has been abolished, he will continue on that post and only after he leaves the post either because of promotion or by retirement the post shall stands abolished. Similarly, with regard to the employees working in the posts where the number of posts have been reduced and as such, they are not related to pay scale.
ix. It would be unjustifiable to submit that by appropriate writ, the Court should direct something which is contrary to the statutory rules. In such cases, there is no question of application of Article 14 of the Constitution. No person can claim any right on the basis of decision which is dehors the statutory rules nor can there be any estoppel.
x. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not come to their rescue as they are not applicable in the instant cases.
As a sequel to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement and sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court restrains itself from interfering in the fixation of pay-scale already done by the Finance Department and approved by the Pad Varg Samiti and as such, I do not find any merit in these applications.
These writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Punit/-