Haldhar Mahto v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.5902 of 2018 Haldhar Mahto ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resource and Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. The Director of Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 5. Regional Deputy Director, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi 6. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Khunti 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti 8. The Accountant General, A & E Jharkhand, Ranchi-2, Doranda, Ranchi 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Arki Block Arki, Khunti 10. Head Master, Rajkiya Utkarmit Madhya Vidyalaya, Sosokutu, Kocha Sindri, Arki, Khunti 11. District Treasury Officer, Khunti ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.P. Sahu, Advocate : : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. R.K. Shahi, AC to SC (L & C) --------- 07/ 02.08.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for a direction upon the respondents for making payment and re-fixation of pension after granting promotion from Grade-II scale to Grade-III with all consequential benefits as he has served for more than 30 years along with arrears of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other dues. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Matric Trained Assistant Teacher in Adarsh Govt. Madhya Vidyalaya, Kanchi, Bundu, Ranchi on 06.01.1977. The appointment of the petitioner was also approved by the respondents. After serving more than 36 years of long service, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.01.2013. 2 It is specific case of the petitioner that in the entire service period, the petitioner was not granted promotion from Grade-II to Grade-III scale though the junior selection grade has been granted by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi on 20.09.1988 itself. After superannuation, the pension of the petitioner has also been fixed, but the Grade-III promotion /scale was not granted to him though he was entitled for the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. J.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for Grade-III promotion/scale from Grade-II scale with all consequential benefits as he has completed minimum 12 years of service in Grade-II or Matric Trained as per Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teacher Promotion Rules, 1993. He further submits that though the junior selection grade was granted to the petitioner, but petitioner is also entitled for Grade-III promotion as his entire service period was unblemished. The petitioner was superannuated, but yet he has been deprived of the benefits of promotion in Grade-III and as such, a direction be given upon the respondents to grant Grade-III promotion from Grade-II with due date with all consequential benefits and also to revise the pension of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent- State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the case of the petitioner is liable to be rejected as he has moved before this Hon’ble Court after 5 years of retirement. The petitioner was not entitled for any Grade-III promotion as his name does not find place in the gradation list. 5. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-A/G submits that though in promotion matter, there is no role of the office of Accountant General, but PPO will be issued on revised scale only if the recommendation is made by the State. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the respondent-State is not aware as to whether the petitioner is entitled for promotion in Grade-III or not and whether promotion has been granted or not and lastly, on whose fault the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate claim regarding promotional benefits. From rejoinder, filed by the petitioner, it appears that respondents themselves have prepared a gradation list and the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.23 of the said gradation list. Further, in different columns of the said 3 gradation list, it appears that petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualification and has been considered for Grade-II promotion w.e.f 01.04.1989 and was eligible for Grade-III promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2007 i.e., much prior to his superannuation. The petitioner was eligible for Grade-III promotion w.e.f, 01.04.2007, but he was not granted in the same due to fault on the part of the respondents. The stand of the respondent-State is totally misconceived and just to frustrate the petitioner, counter-affidavit has been filed, wherein a false statement has been made that he was not entitled for any Grade-III promotion as his name does not find place in the gradation list. The respondent-State is not aware of the its own document, which has been brought on record, by way of rejoinder. This shows the lethargic and lackadaisical approach of the respondent-State, which is not appreciated by this Court. A poor teacher, who has served the Department for more than 36 years, is being deprived of his legitimate right due to fault of the respondents. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are directed to grant Grade-III promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2007 with all consequential benefits and thereafter, to calculate the entire amount and to pay the petitioner with a cost of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be recovered from the erring officials, who were responsible for the delay in extending the promotional benefits to the petitioner. Further, the respondents are directed to fix the pensionary benefits as per his entitlement and to pay the pension in revised pay-scale, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that after calculation since the pensionary benefits has to be extended by way of PPO by the office of Accountant General, the recommendation should be sent immediately to the office of Accountant General by the office of respondent-State. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, writ petition stands allowed. punit/- (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)