The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Sunil Kumar W.P.(S). No. 2648 of 2014 ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, AC to SC(L&C)-II 03/ 22.02.2023 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant the petitioner B.Sc. Trained Scale with all consequential benefits from the date of acquiring teachers training certificate, as per the circular of the State Government and as has been given to other similarly situated persons. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement was floated from the office of District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum inviting applications from the eligible candidates to be appointed in the State owned Primary School running in the district of Chaibasa and Jamshedpur. Besides other qualification, it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that the candidates have to be permanent resident of the district and should possess qualification of Trained Matric/ I.A./ I.Sc./ B.A./ B.Sc., etc. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the same and selected by the respondent- authorities. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 27.06.1986 by the then District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur appointing the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.580-10-620-15-770-15-860. The petitioner was asked to join school at Katushil, Bahragora-2, where he gave his joining. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Asanbani Middle School at Potak-1 Block and granted I.Sc. Trained scale of 730-15- 820-20980-20-1080 since 01.04.1987 and B.Sc. Trained Scale of Rs.850- 2 30-1270-30-1360 since 01.06.1987. It is the further case of the petitioner that an office order dated 24.07.1995 was issued subsequent to the decision taken in the meeting dated 05.12.1994 of the District Education Establishment Committee in which name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 1 in the seniority list prepared by the Regional Deputy Education Director, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. Thereafter, petitioner joined the Asanbani Middle School at Potak-1 Block on 31.07.1995. It is the specific case of the petitioner that by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the I.Sc. Trained and B.Sc. Trained scale granted earlier to the petitioner, were withdrawn. The petitioner is presently working in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- (revised) though juniors to the petitioner have been granted Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of being senior, he has been denied promotions and juniors to the petitioners have been granted to B.Sc. Trained scale from the date of their training. Specific name of one Sunita Tiwari was made, who has been granted the said promotion. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed several representations before the respondent-authorities but the same was not considered and hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is entitled for B.Sc. Trained Scale and the same was given to him. Learned counsel further argues that illegally and arbitrarily, the same was withdrawn without any notice or assigning any reason. Learned counsel submits that respondents admits the fact that petitioner is B.Sc. and as such, he is entitled for B.Sc. Trained Scale. Learned counsel further argues that even discriminatory measure has been adopted as juniors to the petitioner have been granted B.Sc. Trained Scale from the date of their initial appointment but the petitioner has been denied the same benefit. Learned counsel submits that Bihar Nationalised Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993 is not applicable in the instant case, rather the rules prevelant at the time of appointment is applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Arbind Bhushan Dey & Ors. v.State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) JLJR 338 (HC). 3 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for the pay-scale for which he is claiming as his initial appointment was made in Matric Trained Scale. Even assuming that petitioner was having higher qualification of B.Sc. Trained, promotion, if any, can be given in terms of the rules and in case of petitioner, Bihar Nationalised Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993 fully applies and as such, rightly he was not considered for the pay-scale of B.Sc. Trained which was given by way of promotion. However, learned counsel submits that submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that juniors were granted promotion to B.Sc. Trained Scale though not considered, the same shall be considered if the petitioner files a fresh representation. Learned counsel fairly submits that counter-affidavit is silent on that issue. 6. Having heard the parties across the bar and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, promotional benefits are granted as per the Rules. The Rules prevalent at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner is applicable in his case. However, if similarly situated persons have been granted the benefits, the petitioner is also entitled for the same. 7. Under such circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner at par with the similarly situated persons particularly that of one Sunita Kumari and if it is found that case of the petitioner is similar to that of said Sunita Kumari, similar benefits should be extended to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If it is found that petitioner is not entitled for the same, a reasoned order to that effect shall be passed, communicating the same to the petitioner, within a further period of three weeks. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
Decision
stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-