Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sahu & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 21 November, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
W.P.(S) No. 6024 of 2005
with
W.P.(S) No. 6039 of 2005
---
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1. Deepak Kumar Biruly
2. Kanu Ram Hambrom
3. Bhushan Banra
4. Narayan Gope
5. Sudhir Kumar Mahato
6. Ramesh Kalundia
7. Naresh Munda
8. Mangal Singh Barla
9. Pawal Pyara Jojo
10. Manjhi Ram Chandra Hansdah
11. Furllay Soren --- --- Petitioners in WPS 6024/05
1. Sanjay Kumar Sahu
2. Santosh Kumar Pramanik
3. Birendra Kumar Saw
4. Indro Kund Modak
5. Sadanand Hota
6. Kadu Majhi
7. Dinesh Chandra Laguri
8. Drupo Gope
9. Chittaranjan Binod Bihari Mandal
10. Puran Chandra Mahto
11. Subodh Pramanik
12. Gopal Sundar Mandal --- ---- --- Petitioners in WPS 6039/05
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Agriculture and Sugar Cane
Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Special Secretary to the Government,
Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Agriculture Director, Agriculture Directorate,
Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum
West, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents in both cases
---
For the Petitioners: M/s Delip Jerath, Rajesh Kumar, Abhinesh Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, JC to SC-III
---
Present
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
By Court: Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Issue involved herein is, whether respondent State is justified in making a distinction between the petitioners who were absorbed in the cadre of Jan Sewak sometime in the year 1999 from their original cadre of Village Extension Worker in the matters of fixation of their salary, on the ground that the notification dated 2. 08.02.1999 drew a distinction between those Jan Sewaks who were already in service and those who were freshly recruited thereafter? In the opinion of the Court, such a distinction is arbitrary and not tenable in law for the reasons which are being discussed herein-after.
3. Since issue involved in both the writ petitions are common and have been contested on common grounds, for convenience sake, facts as are noticed in WPS No. 6024/2005, are being indicated here-under.
4. Petitioners admittedly were appointed as Village Extension Worker on the basis of an advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1990 for a project sponsored by the World Bank under the provisions of Bihar Village Level Worker and Village Extension Officers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987. Petitioners were sent for compulsory training which they completed sometime in the year 1995 and were posted at different blocks in the district of Singhbhum (West) in the same year. They were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- under the 4th Pay Revision. The project however was not extended for some reasons. The State Government took a decision which was conveyed through letters dated 25.04.1997 (Annexure-3) issued by the Director, Agriculture and further clarification issued thereafter through letter dated 10.07.1997 (Annexure-3/1) by the Regional Development Officer, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and addressed to all Deputy Commissioners / District Magistrates within the district of erstwhile State of Bihar that services of Village Extension Workers engaged in the work of Agriculture Extension in their district were to be absorbed against the vacant post of Jan Sewak or other projects. It was indicated that the issue be given priority and the decision of absorption be communicated to the Directorate of Agriculture. Further directions were also issued by the Agriculture Produce Commissioner, Bihar through letter dated 26.09.1998 (Annexure-4). Finally, petitioners who were serving as Village Extension Workers in the district of West Singhbhum were absorbed through 3. orders issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa dated 05.03.1999 (Annexure-5) and 01.07.1999 (Annexure-5/1). Pursuant to the said decision, petitioners came to be in the cadre of Jan Sewak.
5. It is not disputed that Jan Sewaks were also guided by the same service rules of 1987 and they were also placed in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- under the 4th Pay Revision. The recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission was adopted by the erstwhile State of Bihar through notification dated 08.02.1999 which is annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
6. The controversy which has erupted upon issuance of the impugned orders dated 21.09.2005 and consequential orders dated 13.05.2009 (Annexures-9 & 8 respectively) trace their basis to the notification dated 08.02.1999 (Annexure-A). Essentially, respondents have drawn a classification between those Jan Sewaks who were there in the cadre before issuance of notification dated 08.02.1999 and those who were newly recruited in terms of the distinction made under the said notification dated 08.02.1999 in the matters of pay scale. Revised scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- has been notified for Jan Sewaks who were already in service while the scale of Rs. 3200-4900 has been notified for newly recruited Jan Sewaks who were appointed after the notification dated 08.02.1999. In the aforesaid factual road map, as noticed herein-above, the controversy in issue has to be addressed.
7. Respondents appear to have taken a stand in their counter affidavit that these petitioners were newly recruited in the cadre of Jan Sewak on the basis of the decision taken by the State Government, as World Bank Project had come to an end where they were serving as Village Extension Worker. However, on the other hand, it is to be observed that the decision which forms the basis for taking them into the cadre of Jan Sewak, shows that they were to be absorbed in the cadre of Jan Sewaks as per reading of Annexures-3, 3/1 and 4 dated 25.04.1997, 10.07.1997 and 26.09.1998 respectively. The decision apparently was taken 4. sometime in the year 1997, though it was actually acted upon issuance of orders at annexure-5 and 5/1 dated 05.03.1999 and 01.07.1999 respectively. Petitioners admittedly were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1200-1800 as that of Jan Sewak.
8. It is also evident that these petitioners were getting pre-revised scale of Rs. 4000-6000 upon implementation of 5th Pay Revision, though with effect from 01.01.1996 as Village Extension Worker and monetary benefits were being paid with effect from 01.04.1997 as was extended to all Government employees covered by the notification implementing the 5th Pay Revision. The conclusion that can be easily drawn is that, neither these petitioners were newly recruited, nor they were in any other scale compared to the Jan Sewaks in which cadre they were absorbed. Once they were absorbed in the cadre of Jan Sewak and became members of one service, they stood as equal and could not thereafter be invidiously differentiated for the purposes of salary, scale of pay, etc on the source of their recruitment or on the ground that they were newly recruited.
9. It is well settled by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time that the birth-marks of public servants are obliterated on entry into a common pool and our country does not believe in official casteism or blue blood as assuring preferential treatment in the future career. Illuminating words of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer, J as his Lordship then was in the judgment rendered in the case of Col. A.S. Iyer & ors v. Bala Subramanyan & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 634, is quoted hereunder.
"Let us eye the issue from the egalitarian angle of Articles 14 and 16. It is trite law that equals shall be treated as equals and, in its application to public service, this simply means that once several persons have become members of one service they stand as equals and cannot, thereafter, be invidiously differentiated for purposes of salary, seniority, promotion or otherwise, based on the source of recruitment or other adventitious factor. Birth-marks of public servants are obliterated on entry into a common pool and our country does not believe in official casteism or blue blood as assuring preferential treatment in the future career. The basic assumption for the application of this principle is that the various members or groups of recruits have fused into or 5. integrated as one common service. Merely because the sources of recruitment are different, there cannot be apartheidisation within the common service."
10. The aforesaid enunciation of Principle of Law have also been subsequently followed in several pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as, in the case of Air India v. Nargesh Mirza and Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 335, Kamlakar and others vs. Union of India and others (1999) 4 SCC 756 and recently in the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. versus Atul Shukla etc. in Civil Appeal Nos. 4717-4719 of 2013 on 24th September 2014. This issue had also attracted the attention of Patna High Court in the case of persons who were also appointed as Village Extension Workers under the same Project. Learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Satyendra Kumar & another vs. State of Bihar & ors [CWJC No. 11879/2004) dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner filed on 10.12.2007) held that there is no reason for holding that the appointment of the said petitioners can be treated as future recruitment in terms of the resolution no. 660 dated 08.02.1999 or that they are entitled for payment of salary in the scale of Rs. 3200-4900 in view of the said resolution.
11. The same basis for drawing a distinction between the petitioners and other Jan Sewaks has been relied upon by the respondents in the present case also. It further appears from the said judgment that the petitioners in that case were also in the same scale of Rs. 1200-1800 and were entitled for revised replacement scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- who were being arbitrarily placed in the lower scale of Rs. 3200-4900/- after they were absorbed in the cadre of Jan Sewaks in view of the notification dated 08.02.1999. Learned Court also held that if such a distinction and deprivation of similar scale to the petitioners is without any cogent or specific reason, then issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioners 6 on a later date is clear violation of principle decided by the Apex Court i.e. "equal pay for equal work". It is trite to observe that having come into the cadre of Jan Sewak, these petitioners are performing the same duties and the nature of responsibilities are also the same as that of Jan Sewaks. Respondents therefore do not seem to justify the distinction drawn in respect of the petitioners on any sustainable, logic or lawful reason.
12. In totality of the reasons and principles of law discussed herein-above, action of the respondents to deny equal scale of pay to these petitioners as that of Jan Sewaks to which cadre they belong and also reducing their scale of pay which they were enjoying before coming into the cadre of Jan Sewak, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory as well. The impugned orders therefore cannot be sustained in law as well as on facts and are accordingly quashed. Respondents would release the admissible scale of pay as that of Jan Sewaks to these petitioners along with its arrears from the due date, within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the manner indicated herein above.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 21st November 2014 Ranjeet/