Rakesh Kumar Goswami … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Director, Primary Education, Deptt. of HRD, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 502 of 2013 --- Rakesh Kumar Goswami … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Director, Primary Education, Deptt. of HRD, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Director, Secondary Education, Deptt. of HRD, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4.Deputy Commissioner, Godda 5.District Superintendent of Education, Godda 6.District Education Officer, Godda 7.In Charge Head Master, High School, Sarotia, Godda, Jharkhand --- … … Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma, Advocate : M/s. Aparajita Bhardwaj & Ashish Kr. Shekhar, J.C. to G.P. VI --- 4/18.07.2013 In the writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayer: (i) For a direction to set aside the letter no. 677 (Law) dated 27/29.09.2012 issued by the Director, Primary Education whereby and whereunder she rejected the claim of the petitioner for officiating allowance and deputation allowance; (ii) for direction upon the respondents to pay the Officiating allowance because petitioner worked as a High School Teacher instead of Primary School Teacher during the period 10.09.2005 to 06.09.2010 as per the lawful direction of the District Superintendent of Education, Godda; & (iii) for direction to set aside the relieving order dated 06.09.2010 issued by the Incharge Head Master, High School Sarotia because it has been issued in -2- violation of direction issued vide letter no. 917 dated 01.09.2010 by the District Education Officer, Godda. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Primary School Teacher. On 10.09.2005 in compliance of order dated 10.06.2005, the petitioner gave his joining in the High School, Sarotia. The petitioner continued to work there till by order dated 01.09.2010, he was relieved to join his parent school. The petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2916 of 2012 seeking a direction upon the respondents for grant of officiating allowance which was disposed
Decision
of with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition as representation of the petitioner and to decide the representation by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of direction dated 15.06.2012 of this Court, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by order dated 27/29.09.2012 which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ proceeding. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4.. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a contention that order dated 10.06.2005 whereby, it has been ordered that the teachers who have been posted on deputation in the High School would not be entitled for grant of deputation allowance, does not curtail the entitlement for officiating allowance. He submits that there is a distinction between officiating allowance and deputation allowance. What has been ordered in order dated 10.06.2005 is that, the deputation allowance would not be paid to the teachers who have been posted on deputation as a High School Teacher however, it has not been provided in letter dated 10.06.2005 that such person would not be entitled for grant of any officiating allowance. He submits that since the petitioner was posted on a -3- higher post, i.e., as the teacher in a High School, he was holding a higher post, and therefore, he was entitled for grant of officiating allowance in terms of Rule 90 of Jharkhand Service Code. Relying on the provision as contained in Rule 32 of the Jharkhand Service Code, he submits that the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 10.06.2005 was, in fact, directed to officiate on a higher post, and therefore, he is covered under the provision as contained in Rule 32 of the Jharkhand Service Code. He further submits that in any event, order dated 10.06.2005 is an executive instruction and it would not override the provisions as contained in Jharkhand Service Code which is statutory in nature. He relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in