Jharkhand High Court
Singa Hessa vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 980
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1382 of 2018
Singa Hessa, aged about 50 years, Son of Sri Devendra Hessa, Resident of
Village- Boramundai, P.O. Andhari, P.S. Kumardongi, Dist.- West Singhbhum,
Jharkhand at present posted as Village Level Worker (V.L.W.) in
Jagannathpur Block of West Singhbhum District, P.O. & P.S. Jagannathpur,
Dist.- West Singhbhum ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, office at
Collectorate Building, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, Dist.- Chaibasa
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.
Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum
4. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. &
P.S. Chaibasa, Dist.- West Singhbhum
5. The Block Development Officer, Sonua, P.O. & P.S. Sonua, Dist.- West
Singhbhum
6. The Block Development Officer, Jagannathpur, P.O. & P.S. Jagannathpur,
Dist.- West Singhbhum ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shilpi Gyan, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-II
-----
05/12.10.2020. Heard Mr. M.M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shilpi Gyan, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the respondents to grant benefits of 2nd ACP/MACP on completion of 12/24 years of satisfactory service of the petitioner and to fix his pay on enhance pay scale after granting the benefits of 2nd ACP/MACP.
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Village Level Worker (V.L.W.) vide memo no. 1774 (B) dated 20.11.1990 along with others in the pay scale of Rs.1200-30-1800/- and he joined the service on 05.12.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from one block to another block and lastly he is posted as V.L.W. in Barananda -2- Panchayat of Jagannathpur Block of West Singhbhum District. He further submits that on completion of tenure of service, the petitioner was granted 1st ACP w.e.f. 05.12.2002 along with others vide order dated 28.02.2004. He also submitted that the petitioner has already completed 28 years of satisfactory service, but he was not granted 2nd ACP/MACP. He further submits that similarly situated other persons have been granted the benefit of 2nd ACP/MACP, as disclosed in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. He also submits that the petitioner has already filed representation before the respondents for grant of 2nd ACP/MACP, but his representation has not been considered and no order has been passed as yet.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent authorities, who will look into the matter and pass appropriate order.
In view of the above facts and considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner has not been decided as yet, at the first instance it requires to be considered by respondent no.2. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2 along with all the credentials, on which, he is relying within a period three weeks from today. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, respondent no.2 shall take a decision for such benefit in accordance with rules, regulations and guidelines and will pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Respondent no.2 will also examine the steps as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, whereby, other similarly situated persons have been given the benefit, whereas, the petitioner has been denied.
With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/