Prahlad Kumar Maity v. State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.548 of 2012 Prahlad Kumar Maity ....Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr.Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to S.C.II J.C. to Sr.S.C.II ----- /20.02.2013 The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 05.12.2011(Annexure-1), whereby the petitioners' pay scale has been reduced to Rs.1200-2040/- on the ground that he acquired qualification of training after 31.12.1985. 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/-. The petitioner was bachelor in Science(B.Sc.) and his scale was (untrained) Rs.680-965/-. After his appointment, he was sent for the service training by the respondents. He successfully completed the training in 1986. After completion of training, the petitioner became eligible for getting graduate trained scale of pay. Thereafter, by office order dated 3.7.1993, B.Sc. Trained scale of Rs.1640-2900/- w.e.f. 01.06.1987 was given to the petitioner. 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, by order dated 11.6.2002 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum, the pay scale of science graduate teachers given to the petitioner was cancelled. .2. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and other filed writ petition W.P.(S) no.6278 of 2002. In the said writ application, while issuing notice to the respondents, interim order was passed staying the operation of the letter dated 11.6.2002. 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 petitioners’ pay was revised and their pay scale was replaced by Rs.9300-34800/- in Pay Band(PB-II). The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by order dated 30.04.2009 allowing the petitioner to file representation before the appropriate Forum. The petitioner and others filed representations. The representations were 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.7 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 5.12.2011(Annexure-1). 4. The said order dated 5.12.2011(Annexure-1) 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 their 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.
Legal Reasoning
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 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 .3. 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 petitions. 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 teachers against untrained category of posts with a scale of Rs.680-965/- as they were untrained having a higher qualification of graduation. The pay scale of 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. A High Level Enquiry Team examined the matter and found that the pay scales of the petitioner and others were wrongly fixed at higher scale of Rs.1640-2900/- instead of Rs.1200-2040/-. On the basis of that enquiry report, the Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 8.6.1999 decided to cancel that order. 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 he 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 w.e.f. 01.06.1987. Before that date, he had already completed training and got the certificate thereof in 1986. The petitioner has been getting salary on the said pay scale, .4. which was revised from time to time in accordance with the 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 petitioners’ pay scale, I find no material on record to substantiate the same. The petitioner was initially given graduate untrained scale. The petitioner completed in service training and acquired eligibility and entitlement for graduate trained scale. The graduate trained scale was given to him after acquisition of training. 11.
Decision
In view of the above, I find no error or illegality either in fixation of initial pay scale of the petitioners 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 at 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 petition is allowed. The order dated 5.12.2011, contained in Annexure-1 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. .5. 16. The petitioner is entitled to get the revised pay scales of the said scale and all consequential benefits. 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.