The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 644 of 2023 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi 2.Principal Secretary/Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi 3.The Director, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi 4.Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, PO and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi .... Appellants Versus 1.Radha Mohan Sharma, s/o Ram Kriti Sharma, R/o Bank Colony, Manjhi Tola, Adityapur, near Old Chimni Bhatta, PO and PS Adityapur, District Saraikela Kharsawan 2.The Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Adityapur, PO and PS Adityapur, District Saraikela Kharsawan 3.The Accountant General, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand --------------- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ... Respondents For the Appellant-State For the Resp. No. 3
Legal Reasoning
The writ Court after having considered the chequered history of
Arguments
: Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate --------------- 03rd January 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. I.A. No. 10586 of 2023 The appellant-State of Jharkhand has filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. the delay of 68 days in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, I.A. No. 10586 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed. 2 LPA No. 644 of 2023 LPA No. 644 of 2023 The State of Jharkhand has challenged the writ Court’s order 4. dated 27th July 2023 which held that shifting the date for 1st ACP to the writ petitioner (who is respondent no. 1 herein) from 31st March 2003 to 8th June 2004 was not proper and justified. 5. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand took a stand that in terms of the scheme for granting Assured Career Progression (in short, ACP) benefits which was floated by the State of Jharkhand through Resolution dated 14th August 2002 clearly provides that the benefits under the said scheme shall be given from the date the government employee acquires/fulfills all necessary conditions; in this case, passing of the Accounts examination. 6.
Decision
the case held that there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioner who qualified the Accounts examination, when the said examination was conducted. 7. WP(S) No. 3676 of 2020 held as under: The writ Court in its order dated 27th July 2023 passed in “Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner was never at fault as prior to his becoming eligible for being granted the ACP benefit on completion of 12 years of spotless service the respondent cannot take the plea of the petitioner having not passed the departmental examination. As has been noted above on the date when the petitioner was granted the benefit of ACP i.e. 31.01.2003 the petitioner had qualified in all aspects barring the departmental examination which admittedly was never held by the concerned respondents prior to the date the petitioner became eligible for being granted such benefit. In view of the findings recorded above, the impugned Office Order as contained in Memo No. 882 dated 11.12.2013 issued by the respondent no. 5 is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the concerned respondents to treat the date on which the petitioner was granted the ACP benefit as 31.01.2003. It is further directed that if any deduction has been made on account of the shifting of the date of grant of ACP from 31.01.2003 to 08.06.2004 the same shall be refunded to the petitioner immediately and preferably within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands allowed.” This is not in dispute that the writ petitioner possesses all 8. necessary qualifications for grant of 1st ACP. After the order of 3 LPA No. 644 of 2023 termination of the writ petitioner and other similarly situated employees was interfered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service and the period between 31st January 1991 to 5th September 1996 was regularized. Later on, by an order contained in Memo No. 396 dated 17th March 2006 the writ petitioner was confirmed in service w.e.f. 31st January 1994 and on his completing 12 years of service 1st ACP was given to him w.e.f. 31st January 2003 in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000/-. This is also not in dispute that the departmental examination was conducted only on 7/8th June 2004 in which the writ petitioner appeared and was successful. Notwithstanding that, about 4 years after 1st ACP was granted to him the writ petitioner was informed through Memo dated 11th December 2013 that the date of 1st ACP shall be shifted from 31st January 2003 to the date of conducting the departmental examination, that is, on 8th June 2004. 9. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II submits that a government employee has only a right of consideration for ACP benefits and he shall not have any right to claim such benefit without having acquired the necessary qualification – passing of Accounts examination is one of the necessary qualifications. However, having regard to the hardship that shall ensue to the writ petitioner on account of the latches on the part of the State of Jharkhand in not conducting the Accounts examination in the year 2003, or to say before 31st January 2003, the requirement of the passing of the Accounts examination prescribed under ACP scheme needs to be shifted to the date of entitlement of the writ petitioner. This is also quite unacceptable that once an order for grant of ACP benefits is passed years thereafter such order is sought to be reviewed and, that too, without considering other relevant aspects of the matter such as hardship to the government employee as well as latches on the part of the State of Jharkhand. 10. matter and, accordingly, LPA No. 644 of 2023 is dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in this (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Tanuj/-