The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative v. Reforms and Rajbhasha, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 129 of 2024 ---------- 1. Sandeep Shashi 2. Ajit Shankar 3. Pankaj Narayan 4. Anand Ratna 5. Abhay Kumar Himanshu 6. Mithilesh Kumar 7. Narendra Kumar Hembrom 8. Jagdish Singh Munda 9. Kalicharan Singh Munda 10. Anuj Kumar 11. Manish Kumar 12. Neeraj George Xalxo 13. Raj Kumar 14. Gautam Singh Munda 15. Suneel Swaraj 16. Rohit Kumar 17. Jay Singh Munda 18. Alok Kumar Choudhary 19. Jitendra Kumar 20. Sanjeev Kumar 21. Manjeet Kumar 22. Manuraj Chaturvedi 23. Kunal Kishor 24. John Bodra 25. Ratan Kumar 26. Vinay Sukrat Tirkey 27. Jitendra Kumar Vishwarkarma 28. Sameer Tirkey 29. Dharmandra Kumar 30. Niraj Kumar Singh 31. Satyam Kumar Singh 32. Qutubuddin 33. Rajesh Hembrom ………. Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Versus Reforms and Rajbhasha, Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi. 4. The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ………. Respondents. ---------- 1 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
05/ 06.05.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : : ----------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ishank Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to shift the effective date of promotion of the petitioners from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer granted from 30.12.2023 to the respective dates on which peititoners completed their kalawdhi and fulfilled all the requisite criteria and condition for promotion in terms of the Bihar Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 1939 and the notifications/ circulars issued by the respondents from time to time. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay promotional scale of pay w.e.f. 25.03.2022, the date on which the petitioners were made to hold the promotional post of Assistant Engineer as Incharge. 3. At the very outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ishank Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 367 of 2024 (Shambhu Nath Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and this Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 29.04.2024 allowed the said writ petition. Learned senior counsel accordingly argues that since the case of present petitioners are similar to the petitioner of W.P.(S). No. 367 of 2024, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 4. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as under: “9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, petitioner has rendered his services as an Incharge Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and regular promotion was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.12.2023. Since petitioner has discharged the duties of Assistant Engineer from 20.05.2003, he is also entitled for the salary and other emoluments attached with the said post. 2 in case of Arindam 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court Chattopadhyay and & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra) has held as under:
Decision
13. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that although the appellants were recruited as ACDPOs, the State Government transferred and posted them to work as CDPOs in ICDS Projects. If this would have been a stopgap arrangement for few months or the appellants had been given additional charge of the posts of CDPO for a fixed period, they could not have legitimately claimed salary in the scale of the higher post i.e. CDPO. However, the fact of the matter is that as on the date of filing of the original application before the Tribunal, the appellants had continuously worked as CDPOs for almost 4 years and as on the date of filing of the writ petition, they had worked on the higher post for about 6 years. By now, they have worked as CDPOs for almost 14 years and discharged the duties of the higher post. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor has any material been produced before this Court to show that the appellants have not been discharging the duties of the post of CDPO or the degree of their from other CDPOs. responsibility Rather, the appellants are working as full-fledged CDPOs since July 1999. Therefore, there is no legal or other justification for denying them salary and allowances of the post of CDPO on the pretext that they have not been promoted in accordance with the Rules. The convening of the Promotion Committee or taking other steps for filling up the post of CDPO by promotion is not in the control of the appellants. Therefore, the they cannot be penalised Government's failure to undertake the exercise of making regular promotions. tacitly admitted is different they have that for 11. Admittedly, petitioner was working as Incharge Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and regular promotion was given to him on 30.12.2023, since he has received the salary of Junior Engineer during the aforesaid period, even considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, petitioner is entitled for difference of salary from 20.05.2003 (date on which he was made Incharge Assistant Engineer) to 30.12.2023 (date on which he was given regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer). 12. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the difference of salary to the petitioner from 20.05.2003 (date on which he was made Incharge Assistant Engineer) to 30.12.2023 3 (date on which he was given regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer), within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the same and very fairly submits that if this Court directs, the respondents shall examine the factual aspects of the present writ petition vis-à-vis the factual aspects of W.P.(S). No. 367 of 2024 and if it is found that the cases of present petitioners are similar to the case of petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 367 of 2024, the same benefits shall be granted to the present petitioner also. 6. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being allowed in terms of the order dated 29.04.2024, passed by this Court in case of in W.P.(S). No. 367 of 2024 (Shambhu Nath Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and if the case of the present petitioners are found to be same and similar to the cases of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 367 of 2024 (Shambhu Nath Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 7. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petition vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues involved in in W.P.(S). No. 367 of 2024 (Shambhu Nath Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also, in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. RC/K (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4