Kiran Kumar Sharma v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dy. Director of Industires, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
1 W.P. (S) No. 6878 of 2005 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] ............ Kiran Kumar Sharma ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dy. Director of Industires, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. State of Bihar 4. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi ... Respondents. ............. For the Petitioner : Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Mahua Palit, Advocate.
Legal Reasoning
For the Respondents : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II For the State of Bihar: Mr. Binit Chandra, J.C. to G.A., Bihar ............ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------------ By Court
Decision
Though, in the writ petition several prayers have been made, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined her argument only to the prayer for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 2650-4000, which has been reduced by order dated 22.10.2003 and for refund of the amount, which has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner, on account of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner from 16.11.2000 to June, 2003. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Helper on 08.11.1978, in the pay scale of Rs. 165-204. It is stated that the pay-scale of the petitioner was revised on several occasions and the petitioner was granted benefits of the first time-bound promotion, 2 which are approved by the competent authority. By order dated 16.11.2000, the petitioner's pay was revised in the scale of Rs. 825-1200 (pre-revised) that is, Rs. 2650-4000 (revised). Prior to that the petitioner pay-scale was revised in the pay-scale of Rs. 800-1150 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. By order dated 22.10.2003, the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced to pay-scale of Rs. 2550-3200 and pursuant to the said order deduction has been made for the period between 16.11.2000 to June, 2003. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs as noticed above. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a stand that the petitioner was wrongly granted pay-scale of Rs 2650-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and infact, it should have been in the pay-scale of Rs 2550-3200, which is the pay-scale for the post of Helper in the Industries Department as per Resolution dated 08.02.1999. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the pay-scale of the petitioner pursuant to recommendation of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee was rightly fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 2650-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The Resolution dated 08.02.1999 does not exclude the claim of the petitioner, as a restriction has been indicated for those persons who were granted time-bound promotion after December, 1995, however, 3 the petitioner was granted the benefit of first time-bound promotion on 26.06.1989. She has further submitted that it is incorrect to say that, the benefit of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission should be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the post on which he was initially appointed, for the simple reason that there is a provision under Clause-11 of the Resolution dated 08.02.1999 which specifically deals with the case of time-bound promotions, granted to the employees and therefore, it has been sufficiently indicated in the Resolution also, that the benefit of the pay revision would also be given on the basis of existing pay-scale. 6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, it has been specifically mentioned in the Resolution dated 08.02.1999 that in the event of wrong fixation of pay-scale the amount would be recovered and the employees were directed to give an undertaking that, they would refund the excess amount so paid to them. She has further submitted that a look at the chart, which has been annexed with the Resolution dated 08.02.1999, would indicate that there are certain pay-scales for which similar pay-revision has not been given and thus, it can be safely concluded that the pay-revision would be granted on the basis of the post held by the employee. 7. In the counter-affidavit the Respondents have taken the stand : 7. “That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the IVth Grade post of Helper (Kashtha Tachhan & Pachhi Karan) Jan Jatiya Rupankan Kendra, Khunti, 4 Ranchi in the pay-scale of Rs 165-204/- and subsequently his scale has been enhanced in the light of the Finance Department letter no. 5207 dated 24.05.1980 in the scale of Rs 180- 242/-. This pay scale of Rs 180-242/- has been revised to Rs 375-480/- w.e.f. 1.4.1981 which was again revised to Rs 800-1150/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner was in existing scale of Rs 375- 480/- and granted First Time Bond Promotion in the pay scale of Rs 400-500/- w.e.f. 1.4.1981 in the light of Finance Department Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 which was revised to Rs 825-1200/- in context of replacement scale of Time Bond w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner was wrongly granted the pay scale of Rs 2650-4000/- w.e.f 1.1.1996 which would have been Rs 2550-3200 for the post of Helper of Industries Department as per Resolution No. 660 dated 8.2.1999 of the Finance Department. 14. That in reply to para-6, it is humbly stated and submitted that the scheme of the Time Bond and Selection Grade Promotion has been abolished by the Finance Department Resolution No. 660 dated 8.2.1999. So the revised replacement scale of the State cadre employees has been sanctioned according to the post to post, not from scale to scale by the above resolution. Thus, the demand of the petitioner to grant the replacement scale of Rs 825-1200/- to Rs 2650-4000/- is not maintainable." 8. Clause-11 in the Resolution dated 08.02.1999 is extracted below : 11. “The State Government have decided to abolish the existing facilities of Time Bound Promotions and Selection Grades, discussed in 5 paras 10 and 12 of F.D. Resolution no. 6021 dt. 18.12.89 and they shall cease to be applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 and thereafter in the existing pay scales. If any such promotion, however, is due under the Rules before 1.1.96, it shall be given and the payment of arrears in the existing scale shall be made only upto 31st December, 1995 after which the promotion would be deemed to have been automatically terminated. While fixing pay in the revised scales, such promotions given after 31.12.95 will not be taken into consideration. If such promotions have been given after 31.12.95, then the question of adjustment of such additional emoluments obtained in the process, will be decided after the Fitment Committee submits its recommendations on promotion policy. Promotion to any vacancy of a post identified as 'need based post' would be admissible. The procedure for identification of such need based post have been set out in paragraph-12” 9. The chart annexed with Resolution dated 08.02.1999 would disclose that, the pay-scale of Rs. 800-1150 has been revised to Rs. 2650-4000 and the pay-scale of Rs. 825-1200 has also been revised to Rs 2650-4000. It is also clear from the statement made in paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit that, the petitioner was given revised pay-scale of Rs 800-1150 on 01.01.1986 and this has not been challenged by the respondents contending that this pay-revision was also wrongly given to the petitioner. The plea of the respondents in the counter-affidavit is that the pay-scale of Rs. 825-1200 of the petitioner has been wrongly revised to the pay-scale of Rs. 2650-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and in fact it should be the pay-scale of Rs. 2550-3200. 6 10. Further, in the writ petition, a specific statement has been made in paragraph 15, which is extracted below: 15. “That the fixation so made by the G.M. in the scale of Rs 2550-3200 involved civil consequences but has been done without any notice or show-cause. His pay-scale i.e. Rs 2650-4000 so fixed vide order dated 23.05.2000 has been altered / reduced at Rs 2550-3200 by the respondents without any notice or show-cause which is not only illegal but also arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory as also amount to colourable exercise of power.” 11. I find that the statement made in paragraph No. 11 of the Writ Petition, has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the present writ proceeding and therefore, I am of the view that for that reason also the order dated 22.10.2003 is not sustainable and any deduction from the salary of the petitioner could not have been made without giving proper show-cause notice and opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the said notice which, admittedly has not been done in this case. In any event, in view of the above that the pay-scale of Rs 800-1150 has also been revised to pay-scale of Rs 2650-4000 and the grant of pay-scale of Rs 800-1150 to the petitioner is not under challenge and admittedly, the petitioner's existing pay-scale was not the pay-scale of Rs 775-1025, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the authorities for reconsideration of the claim of the 7 petitioner. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 22.10.2003 is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the pay-scale of Rs 2650-4000 to the petitioner and to refund the amount already deducted from the salary of the petitioner between the period 16.11.2000 to June, 2003 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.) JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI Dated –19.07.2013 Tanuj / .A.F.R.