Pushpa Giri 1. 2. Amita Mahto @ Mahato … v. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Ranchi. Deputy Commissioner
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 787 of 2012 Pushpa Giri 1. 2. Amita Mahto @ Mahato …. Petitioners 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Ranchi. Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Establishment Committee, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Deputy Development Commissioner cum Member, District Establishment Committee, Jamshedpur. Deputy Collector Establishment, Jamshedpur. District Superintendent of Education cum Member Secretary, District Establishment Committee, Jamshedpur. District Education Officer cum Member, District Establishment Committee, Jamshedpur. …. Respondents WITH W.P.(S) No. 821 of 2012 1. 2. Nimai Chandra Dey Prabin Kumar Kuila 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Versus …. Petitioners The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Establishment Committee, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Deputy Development Commissioner cum Member, District Establishment Committee, Jamshedpur. Deputy Collector Establishment, Jamshedpur. District Superintendent of Education cum Member Secretary, District Establishment Committee, Jamshedpur. District Education Officer cum Member, District Establishment Committee, Jamshedpur. …. Respondents WITH W.P.(S) No. 6960 of 2012
Legal Reasoning
Srikant Kumar Giri …. Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Versus The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi. The Secretary, Human Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur. The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. …. Respondents WITH W.P.(S) No. 1955 of 2017 Pushpa Giri …. Petitioner Versus 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ranchi. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand. Ranchi. District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. Accounts Officer in the office of Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioners For the State ------ : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vivek Aditya, Advocate : Mr. Satyam Parmar, AC to SC-VI ----- I.A. No. 3948 of 2018 in W.P.(S) No. 787 of 2012 4/ 06.03.2024 The instant interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of petitioner no.1 (Shankar Prasad Giri) who died on 28.1.2018 during the pendency of this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 died during the pendency of this writ petition and now he will be represented through her widow, namely, Pushpa Giri. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds taken in the instant interlocutory application, the name of petitioner no.1 is allowed to be deleted from cause title of the writ petition and in his place, name of her widow, as mentioned in para-3 of the said interlocutory application be substituted, in course of day with red ink. 4. The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed. I.A. No. 5598 of 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 787 of 2012 I.A. No. 5599 of 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 821 of 2013 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they do not want to press these interlocutory applications, which have
Decision
been filed for early hearing of the writ petitions. 6. Both interlocutory applications stand dismissed as not pressed. 3 W.P.(S) No. 787 of 2012 W.P.(S) No. 821 of 2012 W.P.(S) No. 6960 of 2012 W.P.(S) No. 1955 of 2012 7. In W.P.(S) 787 of 2012, W.P.(S) No. 821 of 2012 and W.P.(S) No. 1955 of 2012, the petitioners have challenged the office orders dated 22.12.2011 by which the B.Sc. Trained Scale of Rs. 1640-2900 earlier granted to the petitioners has been cancelled and their pay fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 has been made, with a further direction to recovery of the excess paid amount to the petitioners. 8. In W.P.(S) No. 1955 of 2017, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 15.6.2016 by which 10% of pension and 10% of gratuity has been withheld. 9. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1144 of 2012, wherein office order contained in Memo No. 3667 dated 22.12.2011 was under challenge by which the earlier granted B.Sc. trained in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was cancelled. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench considering its earlier judgment delivered in the case of Idris Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 346 of 2002 and other analogous appeals, has been pleased to quash and set aside the impugned office order and directed for consequential reliefs to be paid in favour of the teachers. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these writ petitions may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 346 of 2022 & other analogous appeals as well as W.P.(S) 1144 of 2012. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 346 of 2022 & other analogous appeals as well as in W.P.(S) 1144 of 2012. 11. Therefore, nothing remains to be decided afresh in the writ petitions, except to quash and set aside the impugned office orders challenged in the writ petitions. As such, the office order contained in Memo Nos. 3672 & 3671 challenged in W.P.(S) No. 787 of 2012, office 4 order contained in Memo No. 3676 dated 22.12.2011 challenged in W.P.(S) No. 6960 of 2012 and office order contained in Memo No. 3680 and 3679 dated 22.12.2011 challenged in W.P.(S) No. 821 of 2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The present petitioners shall be guided with the observations and directions given in W.P.(S) 1144 of 2012 (Damyanti Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and L.P.A. No. 346 of 2022 and other analogous appeals. 12. So far as the case of petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1955 of 2017 is concerned, it has been brought in the counter affidavit that since the order of recovery has been challenged in W.P.(S) No. 787 of 2012, the 10% of pension and gratuity has been withheld. 13. Since the impugned office order by which B.Sc. trained scale has been cancelled and order of recovery was made have been quashed and set aside by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 787 of 2012, the respondents concerned are directed to release the withheld pension and gratuity amount to the tune of 10% within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand allowed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)