The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 667 of 2022 Netarhat Vidyalaya Teachers Association, office at – Netarhat, P.O. and P.S. – Netarhat, District – Latehar, Jharkhand, through its Secretary Tarkeshwar Paswan, Son of Rambrikash Paswan, Resident of – Lutidih, P.O. – Bagra, P.S. – Simariya, Lutidih, District – Chatra, Jharkhand. V E R S U S … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Office at – Project Building, HEC Township, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand; 2. Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Office at – Project Building, HEC Township, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Principal, Netarhat Aawasiya Vidyalaya – cum – Member Secretary, Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti, Netarhat, an Autonomous Institute at Netarhat, P.O. and P.S. – Netarhat, District – Latehar, Jharkhand. 4. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at – Project Building, HEC Township, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK … … Respondents. For the Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
(iv) There is no dispute that the members of the petitioner-Association were receiving the amount in view of Regulation of 2011 and the service condition clearly provides for the said benefits. When there is clear decision taken by the Governing body of the School pursuant to Regulation of 2011 and the same has already been notified in the Gazette, the Director, Education, Government of Jharkhand, of its own cannot negate the same. (v) There is no dispute that no notification superseding the earlier notification has been floated or Regulation of 2011 has been repealed or rescinded. In absence of any fresh Notification, the stand of the Director, Education is not acceptable and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. (vi) Sudden stoppage of any benefits to which any one is entitled as per Rule or Regulation or the terms and conditions of advertisement and appointment amounts to change in the condition of service which is not RC 5 W.P.(S) No. 667 of 2022 permissible in the eyes of law. The members of petitioner-Association were getting 20% Special Pay in accordance with Recruitment, Service Conditions and Disciplinary Rules, 2011 framed via Jharkhand Gazette Notification NO. 57, dated 06.02.2012 and the same was duly mentioned in the advertisement published by the Samiti and the appointment letters issued to the individuals. The benefits mentioned in the advertisement and the appointment letters, cannot be taken away. (vii) In view of nature of job, the benefits which is being granted to the Members of the petitioner-Association since the year 2013 i.e. pursuant to the Service Rules, 2011 published by the Government of Jharkhand, cannot be allowed to be taken away by the respondents without any valid reason. 9. In view of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, I, hereby, direct the respondent no. 2 to release and pay arrears as well as current Special Pay @ 20% of the Basic Pay as provided under Clauses 6 and 7 of the Chapter-II of the Service Rules, 2011 published by the Government of Jharkhand and which has been paid to the members of the petitioner- Association up to December, 2015, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the respondent no. 3 - Principal, Netarhat Awasiya Vidyalaya shall take effective measures for calculation of arrears thereof to be paid to the members of the petitioner-Association. The respondent no. 2 is directed to disburse the amount to the respondent no. 3 - Principal, Netarhat Awasiya Vidyalaya or the Governing Body of the said School, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondent no. 3, upon receipt of funds, shall ensure payments to the beneficiaries within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that the respondent no. 2 and 3 shall ensure payment of Special Pay with current salary within four weeks.
Arguments
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate Mr. Shashikant Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L & C) For the School : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, AC to SC (L & C) Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate 03/02.12.2024 Heard the parties. PRAYER 2. The teachers posted and working at Netarhat Aawasiya Vidyalaya, Netarhat have raised their grievances through their Association and have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release and pay arrears as well as current Special Pay @ 20% of the Basic Pay as provided under Clauses 6 and 7 of the Chapter-II of the Service Rules, 2011 published by the Government of Jharkhand and which has been paid to the members of the petitioner-Association up to December, 2015. RC 1 W.P.(S) No. 667 of 2022 FACTS OF THE CASE 3. According to the petitioner, the Netarhat Aawasiya Vidyalaya was earlier functioning under the direct supervision and control of Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. In order to make more effective in administrative control and give self-reliance, the State Government, vide department resolution dated 23.10.2009, converted and established Netarhat Aawasiya Vidyalaya into an autonomous institute in the name of Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti, Netarhat and registered it under the Society Registration Act. The General Body of the Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti, vide its meeting dated 16.11.2011, approved the recruitment, service condition and disciplinary rules, 2011 which has been subsequently notified in Gazette by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 57, dated 04.02.2012. The Service Rules, 2011 stipulates about the mode and manner of recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school, terms and conditions of services including pay bands/scales and grade pay etc. of the employees. Under Clause 7 of Chapter-II, there is a provision of Special Pay which provides that all the employees of the School shall be paid 20% of Basic Pay (Pay Band + Grade Pay) as Special Pay. Besides that, under Clause 8, there is a provision of additional special pay for Vice Principal only. Chapter-II separately deals with allowances under Clause 13. 4. It is case of the petitioner that subsequent to the Notification of the Service Rules, 2011, the respondents for the first time issued Advertisement for regular appointment of teachers/counsellor, administrative officer and medical officer. The said advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidates shall be entitled for Special Pay @ 20% of Basic Pay. The similar stipulations were there in all the subsequent advertisements issued upto the year 2016. The members of the petitioner-Association were appointed through one or the other advertisement and after being declared successful, they were issued appointment letters clearly specifying therein that they shall be paid pay and perks besides the Grade Pay in accordance with Service Rules, 2011. Subsequent to their joining, the petitioners were getting their emoluments as prescribed in Service Rules, 2011 and they were being RC 2 W.P.(S) No. 667 of 2022 paid Special Pay @20% of their basic pay upto December, 2015. Grievance of the petitioner-Association is that without any rational and basis, the Special Pay has been made stagnant after December, 2015. The members of the Association approached before the respondents for redressal of their grievances but no heed was paid to the same and as such they have been constrained to knock door of this Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 5. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Shashikant Mishra submits that Netarhat School is a fully residential school situated in the midst of the forest in hilly area, far-off the connectivity to the other places and they have to remain present in the school round the clock. Learned counsel submits that considering the responsibilities of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school which are much more than any other schools, the geographical condition of the school as well as special nature of service being rendered by the employees, the specific provisions has been made in Service Rules, 2011. Learned counsel further argues that the advertisement as well as the appointment letters of members of the petitioner-Association clearly specifies that they shall be paid pay and perks besides the Grade Pay in accordance with Service Rules, 2011. It is specific case of the petitioner-Association that subsequent to their joining, they were getting their emoluments as prescribed in Service Rules, 2011 and they were being paid Special Pay @20% of their basic pay till December, 2015, which is also apparent from the salary slips issued by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that in the instant writ petition, the petitioner-Association is concerned with the Special Pay to which its members are entitled for under Clause-7 of Chapter-II of the Service Rules, 2011. The respondents have arbitrarily made it stagnant causing serious pecuniary loss to the members of the petitioner-Association. Such stagnation of Special Pay is against the provisions of Service Rules. 2011, which has statutory force of law as well as against the offer made at the time of appointment. Learned counsel further argues that neither Rule has been rescinded nor the same has been repealed. No notification to that effect has been floated in supersession of the earlier Notification and as such the earlier Notification still hold good RC 3 W.P.(S) No. 667 of 2022 and in view of the fact that they had received the amount till December, 2015, they are entitled for the same. Learned counsel submits that no reason has been assigned as to why the members of the petitioner-Association are not entitled for the said amount. The reasons assigned in the counter affidavit is not at all acceptable and the same is fit to be denied. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, instant writ petition may be allowed and a direction may be passed for release of arrears as well as current amount under the said head. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 6. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned SC (L & C) assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel representing State argues that members of petitioner-Association are not entitled for any further benefits. They have already received the Special Pay fixed at the rate of 20% of the basic pay till December, 2015. Since their pay is much higher as compared to the other government teachers, the State has taken a Resolution not to extend any further benefits in the garb of Special Pay fixed at the rate of 20%. Referring to statements made in paragraphs-14 and 15 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel argues that admittedly petitioners have received more pay than the other similarly situated teachers in other government schools. There is no occasion to give them any pay under the head Special Pay. There is no merits in the instant writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF SCHOOL 7. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel representing Netarhat School very fairly argues that already a decision has been taken by the Committee to extend the benefits and they have already received the benefits. Learned counsel submits that a direction may be issued to the State to release the amount for payment of arrears as well as current amount under the said head for making payment to the members of the petitioner-Association. Learned counsel further submits that specific averments has been made in paragraphs-15 and 24 of the counter affidavit filed by the School that until and unless amount is released and a direction is given to the Accountant General, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, the respondent-School is not in a position to extend the benefits. RC 4 W.P.(S) No. 667 of 2022 FINDINGS OF THE COURT 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: (i) Admittedly, members of the Association were appointed through regular process pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents. The advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidates shall be entitled for Special Pay @ 20% of Basic Pay. The similar stipulations were there in all the subsequent advertisements issued upto the year 2016. (ii) The members of the petitioner-Association were appointed through one or the other advertisement and after being declared successful, they were issued appointment letters clearly specifying therein that they shall be paid pay and perks besides the Grade Pay in accordance with Service Rules, 2011. (iii) After their joining, the members of the petitioner-Association were getting their emoluments as prescribed in Service Rules, 2011 and they were being paid Special Pay @20% of their basic pay upto December, 2015.
Decision
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 6 W.P.(S) No. 667 of 2022