Dipak Kumar Dutta … v. State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.627 of 2012 Dipak Kumar Dutta …. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari For the Petitioner : M/s. A.K.Mehta & A. Pradhan, Advocates For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P.V ----- 3/14.03.2013 The petitioner confines his prayer to the extent of seeking quashing of the office order dated 22.12.2011(Annexure-9), whereby the petitioner's pay scale has been reduced to Rs.1200-2040/- on the ground that he acquired qualification of training after 31.12.1985. He is also aggrieved by withholding of his salary since October,2011. 2. The petitioner's case is that under the UNICEF plan, Science Teachers were to be appointed in Primary Schools to be called as 'Additional Science Teachers'. Accordingly, 2300 units of Science Teachers were created in Non-Scheduled area by letter dated 20.02.1981 and 700 units of Science Teachers were created in Scheduled area. The untrained science teachers were also to be appointed with condition that they will have to take in- service training after their appointment, failing which their services would be terminated. Those teachers will be entitled to get pay scale of a trained teachers with effect from the date of completing training and getting the certificate. The petitioner along with others were appointed as Science Teachers. Their remuneration was fixed on a stipend basis. For Graduate Untrained Teachers, the stipend was fixed at the scale of Rs.680-965/- and for Graduate Trained Teachers, at Rs.850-1360/-. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was bachelor in Science(B.Sc.) and he had already passed B.Ed. in 1977, but he was allowed untrained scale of Rs.730-1080/- instead of Rs.850-1360/-. A seniority list was prepared by the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum showing the names entitled to get scale of Rs.1640-2900/- vide Memo no.4522 dated 08.04.1991. Accordingly, orders were issued to that effect. His pay fixation was approved by the competent authority of the department. Subsequently, the recommendation of V Pay Revision was adopted by the State Government. The pay scale was revised. The pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- was replaced by Rs.5500-9000/-. The petitioner's pay was fixed in the said revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Suddenly, order dated 1.9.1999 was issued to the similarly situated persons by the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum, whereby the pay scale of science graduate teachers given to the petitioner was cancelled. .2. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, similarly situated persons filed writ application C.W.J.C. no.2974 of 1999(R). In the said writ application, while issuing notice to the respondents, interim order was passed staying the operation of the letter dated 1.9.1999. The petitioner continued to get salary on the said scale. In the meantime, the State Government adopted the recommendation of VI Pay Revision and the petitioner's pay was revised and his pay scale was replaced by Rs.9300-34800/- in Pay Band(PB-II). The said fixation of pay was approved by the District Accounts Officer, East Singhbhum. The writ application filed by the similarly situated persons was
Decision
disposed of by order dated 30.04.2009 allowing the petitioners to file representation before the appropriate Forum. Notice dated 13.12.2011 was issued to the petitioner to file representation. The petitioner filed representations. The representation was placed before the District Education Establishment Committee in the meeting held on 14.05.2010. The said Committee decided to constitute a Screening Committee. The Screening Committee recommended for canceling the trained graduate scale of such candidates, who acquired training after 31.12.1985. The District Education Establishment Committee accepted the said recommendation in its meeting dated 17.11.2011. The respondent no.5 on the basis of the said resolution directed the Headmasters of the Schools to implement the said order and to fix pay scale in the light of the order dated 22.12.2011(Annexure-9) and to call upon the teachers to submit their service books before such entry. In view of the said order, the petitioner was not paid his salary since October,2011. 4. The said order dated 22.12.2011(Annexure-9) has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the same has been passed without taking into consideration that the petitioner was already trained and his pay scale was fixed by the competent authority. According to their qualification, the petitioner has acquired in- service training and is entitled to get trained graduate pay scale from the date of acquisition of the training certificate. The impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Any order, which has effect of reduction of pay scale, cannot be implemented with retrospective effect. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the similar facts and in similar circumstance, some of the aggrieved teachers, namely, Arbind Bhushan Dey & Others had filed writ petitions in this Court being W.P.(S) nos.1555, 1556 and 1575 of 2003 .3. challenging reduction of their pay scale. This Court allowed the writ petitions directing the respondents to pay their salary on Graduate Trained Science Teachers pay scale with effect from the date they acquired teachers training. They were also held entitled to get revised pay scale from the date of implementation of the recommendation of V Pay Revision and VI Pay Revision. He submitted that this cases are squarely covered by the said decision in Arvind Bhushan Dey’s case. 6. The respondents have contested this writ petition. They have, inter alia, stated that it was clearly mentioned in the letter dated 20.11.1982 issued from the office of Education Commissioner, Bihar, Patna that the untrained scale category of unrevised scale of Rs.296-423/- was revised to the scale of Rs.730-1080/- for those who have a qualification of inter and graduate trained and the scale of Rs.680-965/- for those who have a qualification of graduate untrained. The graduate trained scale category of unrevised scale of Rs.387-600/- was revised to the scale of Rs.850-1360/- for those who have a qualification of graduate trained. The petitioner was appointed as teacher against untrained category of posts. The pay scale of Rs.730-1080/- and Rs.680-965/- was revised to Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The petitioner's pay scale was wrongly fixed at Rs.1640-2900/-. That scale was meant for B.Sc. trained category of posts. The impugned order was thereafter issued by the District Superintendent of Education. The order is intended to correct the error in fixation of the petitioner's pay scale. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in canceling the said pay scale, which was wrongly given to the petitioner and the petitioner has no ground to challenge the said order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. 8. Though the respondents have supported the order of cancellation of pay scale of the petitioner with retrospective effect, they fail to legally justifying the same. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's pay scale was fixed by the order of the concerned departmental authorities and the petitioner was allowed pay scale of Graduate Trained Teachers from the date of acquisition of training. The pay on the trained scale was fixed in accordance with the Government circulars and the order was approved by the District Accounts Officer. The petitioner was given pay scale of Trained Graduate vide memo no.4522 dated 08.04.1991. The petitioner has been getting salary on the said pay scale, which was revised from time to time in accordance with the .4. recommendations of V Pay Revision and thereafter VI Pay Revision. The sanction, which was given in accordance with the provision of the UNICEF plan and the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, has been sought to be disturbed after a long time alleging that initial fixation of pay scale was wrong. 10. On perusal of the scheme and the orders issued by the concerned authorities, I find that the orders are consistent and supported with reference of the Government’s letters. No objection was ever made for a long period regarding fixation of initial pay scale of the petitioner. After revisions of the pay scale, there were replacements of the earlier scales. Though the respondents have claimed that there was error in fixing the petitioner's pay scale, I find no material on record to substantiate the same. The petitioner was initially given untrained scale. The petitioner completed in service training prior to his appointment. The graduate trained scale was given to him after acquisition of training. 11. In view of the above, I find no error or illegality either in fixation of initial pay scale of the petitioner or in granting Graduate Trained Scale or further replacement of scales on account of subsequent pay revisions. 12. Similarly, aggrieved persons had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) nos.1555, 1556 and 1575 of 2003. The writ petitions were allowed after contest directing the respondents to pay to Graduate Trained Science Teachers pay scale with effect from their respective dates of acquisition of the teachers training and also at the subsequent revised pay scale and accordingly to pay the arrears thereof. Similar claims have been also allowed in C.W.J.C. nos.2115 of 2001 with 3366 of 2001 relying on the said decision of 'Arbind Bhushan Dey & Ors. Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.' reported in 2009(1)JLJR 338. 13. I find myself in full agreement with the conclusion recorded in the said decisions. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petitions is allowed. The order dated 22.12.2011, contained in Annexure-9 is quashed. 15. It is held that the fixation of the petitioner's salary at the Graduate Trained Science Teachers pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- is proper and the interference with the same is unwarranted, arbitrary and illegal. 16. The petitioner is entitled to get the revised pay scales of the said scale and all consequential benefits. .5. 17. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner's salary, if withheld on the said ground along with arrears of salary forthwith. 18. However, there is no order as to cost. ( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) s.b.