Bir Singh Tiriya, son of late Ghono Triya @ Ghanshyam Tiriya, resident of village v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI LPA No. 193 of 2019 Bir Singh Tiriya, son of late Ghono Triya @ Ghanshyam Tiriya, resident of village- Baralunti, PO- Andhari, PS-Kumardongi, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand retired from the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Bankdhar, PO-Andhari, PS Kumardongi, District West Singhbhum. …. … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 3. The Director, Primary Education Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, PO & PS-Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, PO & PS Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, PO & PS:Chaibasa, District: West Singhbhum 7. The Area Education Officer, Kumardongi, having its office at Kumardongi Block, PO & PS: Kumardongi, District: West Singhbhum. 8. The Accountant General (A & E), Govt. of Jharkhand, PO & PS-Doranda, Ranchi … … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
Legal Reasoning
------ : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate; For the Appellant Mr. S.B.Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I. ------ Order No.7/ Dated: 6 th July 2023 IA No. 5801 of 2020 The present Interlocutory Application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken in the present Interlocutory Application, IA No. 5801 of 2020 is allowed. LPA No. 193 of 2019 3. The appellant who retired as Assistant Teacher approached this Court with a prayer for grant of Grade-III in terms of Bihar Taken Over -2- LPA No. 193 of 2019 Elementary School Teachers' Promotion Rule, 1993. 4. The writ Court has referred to the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand in its counter-affidavit and refused to interfere in the matter on the
Decision
ground that grievance of the writ petitioner was already redressed. 5. The writ Court has made the following observation: “5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. SC-I assisted by Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Dubey argues that from the averments made in the writ petition and from prayer portion itself it transpires that all the grievances of the petitioner has been redressed. Petitioner has been granted the benefits of promotion from Grade-I to Grade-II as per his entitlement and from the date of his actual appointment in Grade-I with effect from 02.06.1977 and Grade-II on completion of 12 years of satisfactory service w.e.f. 02.06.1989. The petitioner after 3 retirement cannot claim for promotion on Grade-III as any promotion in GradeIII has to be made as per Rule and taking into consideration that for promotion from Grade-II to Grade-III only 20% posts of the total number of teachers working in Grade-II shall be available. As the petitioner is not fulfilling the said criteria and hence, he was not entitled for promotion to Grade-III scale. Drawing attention to para-15 of the counter-affidavit, learned counsel submits that petitioner was not granted Grade-III scale as he was not entitled for that on completion of tenure of service as per Rule-5(i) of the Promotion Rules. Further, as per Rule 6(2) only 20% post of the total number of working teacher in GradeII may be placed in Grade-III and the petitioner does not come under the said Rule as he does not belong to top 20% of the total working teachers and hence, rightly his case was not considered. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner has approached this Court after three years of his retirement and as such, there is a delay of three years and as such, this writ petition may be dismissed in limine. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has received all the retiral benefits and his pension has also been fixed in the enhanced pay- scale and as such, all the grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed and hence, no case is made out for interference. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition since the entire grievances of the petitioner has already been redressed. From perusal of the counter-affidavit and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, this Court is fully satisfied that this writ petition warrants no interference since all the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed and as petitioner is not fulfilling the requisite criteria for promotion to Grade-III, he is not entitled for promotion to the said post.” 6. Briefly stated, the appellant has pleaded that he was appointed on a sanctioned vacant post of Matric Trained Assistant Teacher on stipend basis. Thereafter, he was granted Matric Trained Scale in the year 1977 and on completion of twelve years of satisfactory service he was placed in -3- LPA No. 193 of 2019 Grade-II with effect from 2nd June 1989 and his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.5000-8000/-, which was re-fixed in the scale of Rs.9300-34800/- giving him the benefit of 6th Pay Revision. 7. The appellant has claimed that he was entitled to receive pay- scale of Grade-III on completion of 18 years of service in Grade-II but that benefit was not given to him before he retired from service. 8. The scheme of the Rule of 1993 would disclose that promotion from a lower to higher grade is not automatic. This is also well-settled that on attaining the eligibility or on completion of minimum length of service a government employee becomes entitled for consideration but cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand took a plea that only 20% posts are available for promotion from Grade-II to Grade-III. Evidently, the claim of the appellant shall depend on his merit/seniority position and availability of vacancy but in this regard the appellant has not made any statement either before the writ Court or in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 9. While so, we find no ground to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, LPA No. 193 of 2019 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) SB/Nibha (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)