The High Court
Case Details
1 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1691 of 2017 With W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017 With W.P.(S) No. 2316 of 2017 With W.P.(S) No. 5727 of 2017 In W.P. (S) No. 1691 of 2017 Babita Kandeyang - V E R S U S - … … … PETITIONER 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Deputy Development Commissioner – cum – Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Seraikela – Kharsawan. … … … RESPONDENTS In W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017 Nawal Kishore Pandey … … … PETITIONER - V E R S U S - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Deputy Development Commissioner – cum – Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Gumla. … … … RESPONDENTS In W.P. (S) No. 2316 of 2017 Sanjay Paswan … … … PETITIONER - V E R S U S - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Deputy Development Commissioner – cum – Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Gumla … … … RESPONDENTS In W.P. (S) No. 5727 of 2017 1(a) Sita Devi, widow of Late Awadesh Das; RC 2 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others 1(b)Pappu Kumar, son of Late Awadesh Das 1(c) Guddu Kumar Ram, son of Late Awadesh Das 1(d) Sunita Kumari, daughter of Late Awadesh Das 1(e) Priti Kumari, daughter of Late Awadesh Das. 1(f) Mamta Kumari, daughter of Late Awadesh Das. 2. Sem Sunil Murmu 3. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava. … … … PETITIONERS - V E R S U S - 1. The State of Jharkhand the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. through 2. Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad – cum - Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Dhanbad … … … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, AC Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC C.A.V. ON 23.02.2023 Pronounced on 01.05.2023 Dr. S.N. Pathak, J The issues involved in all these writ petitions are same, similar and identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together on
Decision
various dates and are being disposed of by this common order. Prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1691 of 2017 2. The writ petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016, whereby a direction has been issued with respect to entitlement of payment of salary of the petitioners in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009 in parity with all other employees who have been appointed on contract basis. Petitioner has further prayed to declare DRDA Rule, 2009 and the service condition mentioned therein as not applicable for the RC 3 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others employees appointed and working prior to 2009 and further not to treat service condition of the petitioner on similar footing to that of contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009, considering the fact that petitioner had been appointed and confirmed in service on regular pay scale of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6000. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay her salary working to the post of clerk-cum-computer operator, duly confirmed by order of Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as contained in letter no. 1893, dated 03.03.2008, in parity with the contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to revise her salary in the revised pay-scale as per 6th pay revision and further to make payment of dearness allowance along with arrears and other admissible arrears to be accrued on account of revision of pay-scale as per 6th pay revision along with interest. Prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017 3. The writ petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016, whereby a direction has been issued with respect to entitlement of payment of salary of the petitioner in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009 in parity with all other employees who have been appointed on contract basis, contrary to the fact that petitioner’s appointment is not contractual in nature rather he had been appointed in a regular pay scale of Rs.5,000 – 8,000/- and also contrary to the fact that service condition laid down in DRDA Rule, 2009 is not applicable in case of the petitioner as he had been appointed prior to enactment of said Rule of 2009. Petitioner has further prayed to declare DRDA Rule, 2009 and the service condition mentioned therein as not applicable for the employees appointed and working prior to 2009 and further not to treat service condition of the petitioner on similar footing to that of contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009, considering the fact that petitioner had been appointed and confirmed in service on regular pay scale of Rs.5,000 – 8,000. RC 4 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him salary working to the post of Computer Programmer, duly confirmed by order of the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as contained in letter no. 1686, dated 06.03.2014, in parity with the contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009. Prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2316 of 2017 4. The writ petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016, whereby a direction has been issued with respect to entitlement of payment of salary of the petitioner in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009 in parity with all other employees who have been appointed on contract basis, contrary to the fact that petitioner’s appointment is not contractual in nature rather he had been appointed in a regular pay scale of Rs.5,200 – 20,200/- and also contrary to the fact that service condition laid down in DRDA Rule, 2009 is not applicable in case of the petitioner as he had been appointed prior to enactment of said Rule of 2009. Petitioner has further prayed to declare DRDA Rule, 2009 and the service condition mentioned therein as not applicable for the employees appointed and working prior to 2009 and further not to treat service condition of the petitioner on similar footing to that of contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009, considering the fact that petitioner had been appointed in the year 2007 by the Deputy Commissioner – cum – Chairman, District Rural Development Autority, Gumla. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay his salary working to the post of Computer Operator, duly appointed by the order of the Deputy Commissioner – cum – Chairman, DRDA, Gumla and further confirmed by Managing Committee, DRDA, Gumla in parity with the contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009 Prayer of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5727 of 2017 The writ petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo no. 1035; memo no. 1036; and memo no. 1034, 5. RC 5 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others all dated 10.07.2017 issued with respect to the original petitioner nos. 1 (since deceased), 2 and 3 respectively by the respondent no. 4 whereby service conditions of the petitioners have been altered and their status shifted from permanent employee to that of a contractual employee and their pay has also been reduced from the admissible scale of pay along with allowances and increments as per different Finance Department Resolutions applicable from time to time, to contractual lump sum payment against their respective salary as intended in letter no. 6454, dated 02.09.2009, issued by the Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand whereby the corresponding contractual payment against the scale of pay with respect to the posts have been prescribed. Petitioners have further prayed to declare that a new DRDA Appointment Service Conditions and Conduct Rules, 2009 as also letter no. 6454, dated 02.09.2009 cannot be implemented upon the petitioners to the extent of being detrimental to their service conditions and monetary benefits being approved to them and drawn for years together in terms of different pay revisions implemented by the Government of Jharkhand. Petitioners have further prayed to quash the DRDA Appointment Service Conditions and Conduct Rules, 2009 as also letter no. 6454, dated 02.09.2009 so far as the petitioners are concerned. FACTS OF THE CASE 6. According to petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1691 of 2017, she had been appointed against the vacant post as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, which was a transformation of the post of Clerk-cum-Typist, in pursuance to the order as contained in Memo no. 1893, dated 03.03.2008 and was allowed the regular pay-scale of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6000. CPF account of the petitioner was also opened vide letter no. 6310, dated 16.09.2008 and regular deduction/ contribution was made for the same. After 6th Pay revision, petitioner represented for the said benefits. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter as contained in letter no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016, whereby she had been treated to be a contractual RC 6 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others employee and accordingly, it was observed that she is entitled for salary in parity with the contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rule, 2009. 7. According to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017, the Managing Committee of DRDA, Gumla in its meeting dated 30.12.1996, has resolved to engage a programmer to manage its account and other works through computer and pursuant to the said resolution, the National Informatics Centre, Gumla, vide its letter dated 17.01.1997, addressed to the respondent no. 3, recommended name of the petitioner for the said job, who was already working since 02.01.1997 under NIC for DRDA, Gumla. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the Deputy Commission – cum – Chairman, DRDA, Gumla gave approval of engagement of the petitioner on 10.02.1997 from retrospective date i.e. 02.01.1997. Petitioner was also granted pay scale of Rs.5,000 – 8,000 on the post of Computer Programmer and accordingly, memo no. 814, dated 24.12.1999 was issued whereby pay of the petitioner was fixed at the rate of Rs.6,850/-. The Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India issued one communication on 08.09.2006 whereby the respective State Government had been directed to approve the decision of the Governing Body of the District Rural Development Authorities with respect to appointment, promotion, posting, transfer, pension, gratuity etc. In terms of the said communication, the different Rural Development Department approved decision of the Managing Committee, vide letter as contained in Memo No. 1893, dated 03.03.2008 but so far persons working in the district of Gumla are concerned, no decision had been taken by the respondent authority. Subsequently, vide letter no. 5540, dated 25.07.2009, request was made to absorb the employees directly appointed in DRDA. Similar communication was also made to the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand vide memo no. 6454, dated 02.09.2009 whereby request was made to create posts in accordance with letter dated 07.08.2006, issued by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the Rural Development Department issued DRDA Appointment – cum – Service Condition Rules, 2009 whereby the process for making appointment has been RC 7 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others decided and published. Vide letter no. 265, dated 21.01.2010, a direction was also issued to all the Divisional Commissioners/ Deputy Commissioners and the Deputy Development Commissioners of the State through the Secretary, Rural Development Department clarifying that all appointments in pursuance to the Recruitment Rules, 2009 will be made only with respect to remaining vacant posts. Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.06.2010, the respondent no. 2 issued a direction to take necessary steps for confirmation of service of the petitioner. In light thereof, the matter of the petitioner was considered in the meeting of the Managing Committee of DRDA, Gumla on 22.07.2010 and it was decided to approve pay scale of the petitioner to the scale of Office Assistant i.e. Rs.5,000 – 8.000 and the petitioner was granted benefits of 6th Pay Commission by the respondents and his pay-scale had been fixed in the scale of Rs.9,300 – 34,800 and vide memo no. 2141 (II), dated 13.10.2010, the petitioner was allowed the said scale and revisional benefits. Service book of the petitioner was also opened and he was allotted CPF Account and regular deduction started from his salary. Petitioner also appeared in the departmental examination and was declared successful. Further communication was made to respondent no. 2 vide letter no. 1262(II), dated 29.11.2013, stating therein that as petitioner was discharging his duties in DRDA, Gumla prior to issuance of DRDA Rules, 2009, therefore, his services may be approved/ confirmed in light of letter of the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India dated 08.09.2006. another letter dated 26.02.2014 had been issued whereby necessary details regarding services of the petitioner had been forwarded to the respondent no. 2 for confirmation of services of the petitioner. Thereafter, pursuant to memo no. 1686, dated 06.03.2014, the decision taken by the Managing Committee of DRDA, Gumla for grant of pay scale to the petitioner has been approved/ confirmed. The information regarding confirmation of pay scale of the petitioner and other necessary information was conveyed to the respondent no. 2 vide letter no. 1309(II), dated 29.12.2015. It is case of the petitioner that he is discharging his duties in DRDA, Gumla and since December, 1999 he has been granted pay scale, his services was RC 8 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others confirmed, his CPF Account was opened and he had also passed departmental examination of Hindi and he was consequently granted benefits of increment etc. However, without considering all these aspects of the matter, the respondents authorities have issued a letter as contained in letter no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016 whereby and whereunder a common order has been passed with regard to employees of different DRDA and all of them whether appointed prior to issuance of 2009 rules or after issuance of the same, they all have been treated to be contractual employees and it has been decided to make payment to them as per contractual employees. Being aggrieved, petitioner represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla but no heed has been paid rather without issuance of any show-cause, a decision has been made to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner from November, 2016. 8. According to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2316 of 2017, pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee of DRDA, Gumla, dated 22.05.2005, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, DRDA, Gumla, vide Memo No. 511, dated 28.04.2007, decided to engage petitioner on honorarium to the post of Computer Operator. Thereafter, vide memo no. 461, dated 17.03.2008, issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, the petitioner was allowed to work on contractual basis to the post of Computer Operator on the emoluments of Rs.5,500/- per month. In light of letter no. 17014/9/2006, DRDA, dated 08.09.2006, issued by Government of India, the Managing Committee of DRDA, Gumla vide resolution dated 11.02.2010, recommended name of the petitioner to the State for confirmation on the newly created post of Steno-cum-typist. Thereafter, the Managing Committee, Gumla pursuant to the meeting dated 22.07.2010, revised the pay scale of the petitioner to the scale of Rs.5,200 – 20,200 and an office order vide memo no. 2141, dated 13.10.2010 was also issued under signature of the respondent no. 3. Petitioner continued to get his salary in the said scale. Pursuant to the communication dated 08.09.2006, the Government of India through the Ministry of Rural Development directed the respective State Governments to approve decision of the Governing Body of the District RC 9 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others Rural Development Authorities with respect to appointment, promotion, posting, transfer, pension, gratuity etc. However, in spite of said letter, no step was taken in the district of Gumla. Thereafter, vide letter no. 5540, dated 25.07.2009 request was made to absorb employees directly appointed in DRDA. Similar communication was also made by the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand. Thereafter, the Rural Development Department issued DRDA Appointment – cum – Service Condition Rules, 2009 whereby process for making appointment has been decided and published. The letter no. 265, dated 21.01.2010, issued by the Rural Development Department also clarifies that the appointment in pursuance of the Recruitment Rules, 2009 will be made only with respect to remaining vacant posts only. Service book of the petitioner was also opened and he was allotted CPF account number and regular deductions were being made. Petitioner also appeared in the departmental examination and was declared successful. However, without considering all these aspects of the matter, the respondents authorities have issued a letter as contained in letter no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016 whereby and whereunder a common order has been passed with regard to employees of different DRDA and petitioner in this writ petition has also been treated to be contractual employee and it has been decided to make them payment as per contractual employees. Being aggrieved, petitioner represented before the respondents but no heed has been paid. 9. According to the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5727 of 2017, they were being governed by the same service conditions as are applicable to the employees of the State in Grade-III cadre and were also entitled to same and similarl monetary and service benefits as to their contemporaries in the State Government, which is apparent from the letter no. 5540, dated 25.07.2009, issued by the Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed to the post of Night Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 350, and 425 vide memo no. 1182, dated 06.07.1982, issued by the Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, Dhanbad. In the proceeding of the Management Committee of DRDA, Dhanbad, held on 22.06.1982, the State Government vide letter no. 1782, dated 26.02.1982, sanctioned post RC 10 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others of Accountant, Lower Division Clerk and Night Guard. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed against the vacant sanctioned post whereas petitioner no. 2 was appointed to the post of Class-IV on compassionate ground on account of death of his father who was a Class-IV employee in Collectorate, Dhanbad and the said appointment was approved by the District Compassionate Committee. The petitioner no. 3 was engaged regularly on daily wages in the District of Dhanbad in July, 1992 by the DRDA, Dhanbad and the payment was based upon the absentee chart and were made by voucher payment in accordance with the admissible remuneration at the relevant point of time for typists – cum – computer operator. Subsequently, the petitioner no. 3 was engaged on contract basis in the year 1992 in DRDA, Dhanbad and was being paid sum of Rs.4,500/- at that point of time. Pursuant to the meeting of the Board of Management, DRDA, the salary of the petitioner no. 3 was enhanced from Rs.4,500 to Rs.5,970/-. Since no post was sanctioned in DRDA, Dhanbad for Computer Operator, the DRDA, Dhanbad, vide letter no. 829, dated 15.06.2001, requested the respondent no. 1 for sanction of post of Computer Operator. Pursuant to the memo no. 40, dated 25.04.2004, the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand sanctioned several posts with respect to the District Rural Development Agencies of eight districts. From the said letter it clearly transpires that two posts of Computer Operator – cum – clerk was sanctioned for the DRDA, Dhanbad in the pay scale of Rs.4,000 – 6,000. In the meeting of DRDA, Dhanbad dated 18.05.2005, the Board of Management unanimously resolved to absorb services of petitioner no. 3 and, thereafter he was taken into regular establishment of DRDA, Dhanbad in the scale of Rs.4,000 – 6,000 as Clerk – cum – Computer Operator and his payment was further approved by the Director, Accounts Admin), DRDA, Dhanbad. His service was further confirmed by order of Joint Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 1893, dated 03.03.2008. Vide memo no. 6454, dated 02.09.2009, the Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand sanctioned several posts in the District Rural Development Agencies in consonance with the directives RC 11 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others of the Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development, Government of India which indicates that those posts which were earlier sanctioned in the concerned DRDA, would be deemed to have been merged in the equivalent posts and as such the posts of Computer Operator – cum – Clerk has been indicated to be in unrevised scale of Rs.4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- equivalent to revised scale of Rs.5,200/- to Rs. 20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-. It is further case of the petitioner that vide memo no. 660, dated 23.10.2009, the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, notified DRDA Appointment, Service and Conduct Rules, 2009 and it was notified that all further appointments in the concerned DRDA shall be purely on contractual basis. Further, vide letter no. 265, dated 21.01.2010, it was clarified that save and except those employees appointed prior to 2009 Rules, against sanctioned posts, all other posts as indicated in 2009 Rules, shall be filled up with eligible candidates in accordance with the process of appointment as prescribed in 2009 Rules. The Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand again issued a clarification to the Commissioner, Kolhan Division, East Singhbhum, Chaibasa that in terms of 2009 Rules, only those posts which are vacant after Notification of Rules, shall be filled up as per new procedure and the earlier appointments against vacant sanctioned posts shall not be affected. However, the Deputy Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand issued memo no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016, addressing to all Deputy Development Commissioners in the State pointing out that there is difference in contractual remuneration being paid to Computer Operators appointed on contract basis and further directed that all employees including Computer Operators – cum – Clerks in DRDA be paid their salary in terms of 2009 Rules on the basis of contractual remuneration. Under the circumstances, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad, vide memo no. 1034, 1035 and 1036, all dated 10.07.2017, converted the status of the petitioners from permanent regular employee working against the sanctioned posts to the contractual employee with fixed remuneration per month as prescribed by the 2009 Rules. RC 12 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners have knocked door of this Court for the relief as prayed for in the writ petitions. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 11. Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh and Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of petitioners. 12. It has been strenuously urged by learned counsels that petitioners are discharging their duties regularly and in pursuance to the valid order passed by the competent authority, they are being paid basic pay scale, but without considering these aspects of the matter, advertisement has been issued for filling up the post against which they are working, which is absolutely contrary to the recruitment rules, 2009. 13. Learned counsel further argues that the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, vide its letter no. 5540, dated 25.07.2009, has already clarified that the service condition of the employees working in different District Rural Development Agencies in the State of Jharkhand wherein they have been treated at par with the government servants on many counts. The action of the respondents in treating the petitioner a contractual employee and issuing direction and making payment of salary in parity with the contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDS Rules, 2009 is illegal and arbitrary and fit to be interfered with. Learned counsel further argues that similarly situated persons working in DRDA in other districts of Jharkhand i.e. persons appointed/ confirmed prior to issuance of DRDA Rule, 2009 are getting regular pay scale for last many years and even after enactment of DRDA Rules, 2009. 14. Drawing attention towards letter no. 1879, dated 19.03.2012 [Annexure-24 to W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017], learned counsel submits that in respect of similarly situated employees under DRDA, Seraikella Kharsawan, the Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand has clearly opined that the Managing Committee of any DRDA is self competent to take any decision in light of different instructions issued by the State Government and different Managing Committees are vested with Executive and Financial Powers RC 13 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others as per guidelines framed by the Government of India for District Rural Development Agency Administration. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners are facing acute financial hardship due to whimsical orders passed by the respondents and they are getting only 40% of the salary what they were getting earlier. Learned counsel further submits that the similarly situated persons working in DRDA in other districts of Jharkhand i.e. persons appointed/ confirmed prior to issuance of DRDA Rule, 2009 are getting regular pay scale for last many years and even after enactment of DRDA Rules, 2009. 15. Learned counsel vociferously argues that in order to come out of confusion, the Rural Development Department through its Secretary has issued one direction vide letter no. 265, dated 21.01.2010, to all Divisional Commissioners/ Deputy Commissioners and the Deputy Development Commissioners of the State clarifying therein that the appointment in pursuance to the Recruitment Rules, 2009 will be made with respect to remaining vacant posts only. 16. Learned counsel further argues that the Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, vide his letter no. 1879, dated 19.03.2012, issued in respect of similarly situated employees under DRDA, Seraikella Kharsawan clearly opining that the Managing Committee of any DRDA is self-competent to take any decision in light of different instructions issued by the State Government and different Managing Committees are vested with Executive and Financial powers as per guidelines framed by the Government of India for the District Rural Development Agency Administration. 17. Learned counsel further argues that some of the petitioners were also entrusted with the responsibilities like Census, Election Duty etc. and they have diligently discharge the duties as such. Various appreciation letters were also issued in their favour for efficient and diligent duties. 18. Drawing attention towards memo no. 1128, dated 24.02.2012, learned counsel submits that the employees who have been appointed by DRDA and their appointments have been approved by the Department, were to be treated as permanent employees and that the 2009 Rules RC 14 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others providing the process of appointment in prospective in nature and as such, the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5727 of 2017 also have a good case. Learned counsel further argues that prior to issuance of memo no. 1034, 1035 and 1036, all dated 10.07.2017, converting status of the petitioners from permanent regular employee working against the sanctioned posts to the contractual employee with fixed remuneration per month as prescribed by the 2009 Rules, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad did not issue any show-cause notice or explanation. The salary of the petitioners have been illegally and arbitrarily reduced by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that the 2009 Appointment, Service and Conduct Rules for the employees of DRDA and several letters issued in reference thereto, are self-explanatory to the extent that those service conditions are prospective in nature affecting employees who would be appointed after notification of the concerned 2009 Rules. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS – STATE 19. Per contra counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. 20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in W.P.(S) No. 1691 of 2017 very fairly submits that Rule 09 of DRDA Recruitment Rules, 2009 states that the contractual payment to the DRDA employee will be paid as per fixation of Dearness Allowances from time to time by Finance Department, Jharkhand to the contractual employees. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017 argues that upon enquiry it was found that the revised pay scale was never approved by the Department, Government of Jharkhand and it was held that before issuance of DRDA Rule, 2009, petitioner was not working against any sanctioned and created post of DRDA. Nothing wrong has been committed while rejecting pay fixation of the petitioner in DRDA meeting dated 22.07.2010. The writ petition has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 22. Learned counsel appearing in W.P.(S) No. 2316 of 2017 submits that the petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned and RC 15 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others created post of DRDA rather he was engaged on fixed remuneration. The revised pay was never approved by the State of Jharkhand. The service condition of the employees working against the previously existing sanctioned posts of DRDAs will be guided as per DRDA Rules, 2009. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 5727 of 2022 submits that the Rural Development Department had issued a letter no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016, wherein reference has been made about the Department letter no. 5540, dated 25.07.2009. Clause-5 of the said letter states that appointments made by the Managing Committee of the District Rural Development Agency prior to 01.04.1999 cannot be regularized as regular government servant. Petitioner no. 1 was appointed by the Managing Director, DRDA in the year 1982 and hence is covered under the provisions of letter no. 5540, dated 25.07.2009, issued by the Department. Learned counsel further argues that in light of new DRDA Appointment Service Conditions and Conduct Rules, 2009, in all the District Rural Development Agencies of the State, the said amendment will be equally effective on the employees already appointed and working on contract and, therefore, the amended notification relating to DRDA Service Conditions and Conduct Rules, 2009 shall be applicable with retrospective effect on the present petitioners also. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 24. Be that as it may, before coming to a finding, the following issues involved in these writ petitions has to be carefully examined and answered accordingly. (I) Whether the petitioners had been working against the sanctioned vacant posts? (II) Whether the pay scale granted to the petitioners can be lowered down without following the procedures of law? (III) Whether the DRDA Rule, 2009 and the service conditions mentioned therein has retrospective effect or the prospective effect? RC 16 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others (IV) Whether service of the petitioners can be deemed to be permanent in nature and can be treated at par with the similarly situated government employees? (V) Whether case of the petitioners can be distinguished with other similarly situated persons? (VI) Whether there can be class within the class amongst the similarly situated persons? 25. In view of the facts stated in W.P.(S) No. 1691 of 2017, it is an admitted fact that petitioner had been appointed and confirmed in service on regular pay scale of Rs.4,000 – 6,000. Similarly, in W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017, petitioners were appointed in a regular pay scale of Rs.5,000 – 8,000. In W.P.(S) No. 2316 of 2017, it appears that they were appointed in a regular pay scale of Rs.5,200 – 20,200. In W.P.(S) No. 5727 of 2017, the permanent status of the petitioners were subsequently changed to that of contractual employees and the pay scale was reduced. Meaning thereby, their initial appointments were of permanent in nature. 26. From the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that all the petitioners were appointed on vacant and sanctioned posts and their appointment were permanent in nature in a fixed pay scale. The Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand vide its letter no. 5540, dated 25.07.2009 has already clarified that the service conditions of the employees working in different District Rural Development Agencies in the State of Jharkhand have to be treated at par with the Government servant. The respondents have lowered down the pay scale granted to the petitioners without following any procedures of law and are treating them as a contractual employees and making payment of salary in parity with the contractual employees appointed in terms of DRDA Rules, 2009, is illegal, arbitrary and not permitted under the law. It is settled principles of law that any order visiting with civil and evil consequences, the provisions of natural justice is attracted. The respondents, without even issuance of show-cause notice and awaiting for their explanation, have issued the impugned orders in relation to different petitioners whereby their service conditions have been altered from the status of permanent employees to that of the contractual RC 17 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others employees and their pay scale have also been reduced along with allowances and increments, which is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 27. Further issue involved in the writ petitions whether DRDA Rule, 2009 can be given a prospective effect or is retrospective in nature. The law is very clear that any rule or law enacted is always prospective in nature unless and until it is mentioned in expressed language that the rule is retrospective in nature. In the instant case also, the 2009 Rule has been given retrospective effect which is impermissible in the eyes of law and is applicable only to the employees appointed after the year 2009 and not applicable to the employees who were working on permanent posts since long even before the coming of such Rule of 2009 and thus very comfortably it can be inferred that any order altering the status of the petitioner to that of a contractual employee in garb of 2009 Rules, is not at all tenable and the order stands vitiated and is nullity in the eyes of law. 28. It appears that vide letter no. 265, dated 21.01.2010, a direction was also issued to all the Divisional Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Deputy Development Commissioner of the State through the Secretary, Rural Development, clarifying that all the appointments in pursuant to the Recruitment Rule, 2009 will be made only with respect to remaining vacant posts. Since petitioners were appointed, confirmed prior to issuance of the Rule, 2009 and were getting regular pay scale for last many years and even after enactment of DRDA Rule, 2009 and it was duly clarified vide letter no. 265, dated 21.01.2010 to all the Divisional Commissioners/ Deputy Commissioners and the Deputy Development Commissioners of the State that the appointment in pursuance to the Recruitment Rule, 2009 will be made with respect to the remaining vacant posts. The case of the petitioners remained intact and cannot be influenced by the 2009 Rules. 29. From the record it is also clear that similarly situated persons in other districts are getting the regular pay scale and their services have not been disturbed. Since the services of the persons in the other districts are similar to that of the petitioners, they cannot be discriminated as there RC 18 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others cannot be class within the class and any such discrimination amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such the order itself is nullity in the eyes of law and not sustainable. 30. Since the service condition of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are same and similar, they cannot be singled out and treated differently. The action of the respondents are arbitrary and discriminatory. 31. The Government of Jharkhand has clearly opined that the Managing Committee of any DRDA is self competent to take any decision in light of instructions issued by the State Government and different Managing Committee are vested with the executive and financial powers as per the guidelines framed by the Government of India for District Rural Development Agency administration. The petitioners who are entrusted with the responsibilities like census, election duties and are diligently discharging the duties, this Court is of the view that their services cannot be altered in view of 2009 Rules and they are entitled for the similar benefits which the other similarly situated persons are getting even after coming into the effect 2009 Rules. Their appointments which are permanent in nature and the pay scale which they were getting prior to 2009 Rules, is hereby directed to be restored. The Managing Committee is at liberty to take a decision keeping in view the nature of appointment of the petitioners and also in view of the decision of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5074 of 2015 and other cases. 32. As a sequitur of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioners be reconsidered. Consequently, the impugned orders i.e. (i) order issued vide memo no. 7196, dated 16.12.2016 [In W.P.(S) No. 1691 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 2311 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 2316 of 2017]; (iv) order issued vide memo no. 1035; memo no. 1036; and memo no. 1034, all dated 10.07.2017 as also letter no. 6454, dated 02.09.2009 so far as the petitioners are concerned [In W.P.(S) No. 5727 of 2017] are hereby quashed and set aside. RC 19 W.P.(S) NO. 1691 OF 2017 and three others 33. Needless to say since petitioners are facing acute financial hardship due to orders passed by the respondents and are getting 40% salary and persons who were in DRDA in other districts of Jharkhand and whose services were confirmed prior to DRDA Rules, 2009, are getting regular pay scale for last many years, they are entitled for similar benefits, a decision to that effect shall be taken within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that since Memo no. 716, dated 16.12.2016 was stayed vide order dated 16.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 2316 of 2017 and it was ordered that no reduction of pay pursuant to the impugned order be effected, the petitioners are entitled for the same status and the pay scale as on 16.08.2017. 34. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand allowed. 35. As a sequel thereof, all the Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC