Ram Chandra Jha v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 3. The Director, Primary
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.483 of 2012 --------- Ram Chandra Jha ..… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 3. The Director, Primary Education, Department of Schooling and Literacy, Project Bhawan, Ranchi. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad. 5. The Area Education Officer, Dhanbad. 6. The Headmaster, In-charge, Middle School, Bhagabanda, Dhanbad ..... Respondents ---------
Legal Reasoning
view of the order passed by this Court in earlier writ application filed by this petitioner being C.W.J.C. No.702/2000 (R) the Writ Court has taken into consideration the similarly placed persons who have been granted scale from earlier date, however the impugned order does not whisper about similarly situated employees as such the instant application is required interference by this Court and the matter may be remitted back for taking a decision afresh strictly in compliance of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.702/2000 (R) . 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State upon instruction fairly submits that the matter may be remitted back to the concerned authority who shall pass a fresh order in compliance of the direction passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record especially the order dated 21.02.2013 passed in the case of C.W.J.C. No.702/2000(R), it appears that while appreciating the contention of the petitioner this Court in paragraph Nos.5 & 6 has held as under:- 5. Petitioner has however, enclosed a chart (Annexure- 14) signed by the District Education Officer, Dhanbad dated 27.9.1986 where in a list of teachers have been 3 shown who have been granted I.A. trained scale and B.A. trained scale from different dates. It is the contention of the petitioner that persons, similarly situated or even junior to him in terms of grant of I.A. trained scale have subsequently been granted B.A. trained scale by the respondent, District Education Officer, Dhanbad, which would be reflected in the last column of Annexure-14 showing different dates of 1975, 1978, 1984, 1981, 1982 in each individual cases. It is the contention of the petitioner that the statement made in para 24 of the writ petition, in support of which Annexure-14 has been relied upon by the petitioner has not been categorically controverted by the respondents in their reply in para 27 of their counter affidavit. 5. It, therefore, becomes clear that the petitioner may not be right to claim a particular scale from the date when he acquired that qualification which it is to be reckoned and considered by the respondent-authorities on the basis of vacancy and after consideration of his qualification and seniority along with other eligible candidates. From Annexure-14 it appears that other persons have been granted B.A. trained scale, although some of them were granted I.A. trained scale after the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, in view of the grievance of the petitioner for grant of B.A. trained scale as claimed by him from anterior dated on 1.1.1987, the petitioner is allowed liberty to file a representation for such claim within 4 weeks from today together with all the supporting facts and documents before the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand. Petitioner may also raise his grievance in relation to the claim of scale of Head Master. On such representation being filed he shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law upon verification of records and after getting satisfied that similarly placed persons have been granted scale from earlier date and pass a reasoned 4 and speaking order within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. 5. Upon perusing the aforesaid order, it is evident that this Court while remitting the case back to the concerned respondent had directed that he shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law upon verification of records and after getting satisfied that similarly placed persons have been granted scale from earlier date and pass a reasoned order. However, after perusing Annexure-11, it appears that the concerned authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has not considered the case of the similarly placed persons. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid discrepancy and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, interest of justice would be sufficed by remitting the case back to the concerned authority to take a fresh decision strictly in compliance to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application being C.W.J.C. No.702/2000(R). Accordingly, impugned order dated 20.08.2013 (Annexure-11), is hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3, who shall pass a fresh order strictly in compliance to the direction passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.702/2000 (R) dated 21.02.2013 and will consider the case of the petitioner after getting satisfied that similarly placed persons have been granted scale from earlier date and pass a reasoned order within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 7.
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- :Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate :Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, A.C. to G.P.III --------- For the Petitioner For the Res. State 10/Dated: 28.11.2023 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his arguments only on prayer nos.(i) & (iii) which is quoted hereinbelow:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing the Order contained in Memo No 78 dated 7.1.2012 and memo no. 79 dated 7.1.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 by which instead of granting the medical leave from 25.7.2011 to 16.9.2011 (54 days) the earned leave has been granted without considering the fact that the petitioner was on medical leave and consequently to grant the medical leave from 25.07.2011 to 16.09.2011 as the petitioner was on medical leave. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ to quash the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 and consequently allow the benefit of B.A. trained scale as well as the promotion on the post. of Headmaster with effect from 1.1.1976. 2. Mr. Samir Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even earlier the petitioner had knocked the door of this Court and this Court vide its order dated 21.02.2013 had remanded the matter back to the concerned respondent to decide the case of the petitioner. However, the concerned 2 respondent again did not comply with the direction passed by this Court and has rejected the representation of the petitioner in a summary manner without taking into consideration that similarly placed persons have been granted scale from the earlier date. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-11, which is the impugned order and submits that in
Decision
Consequently, the instant application stands disposed of. Fahim/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)