Allowed

Purusottam Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2016WPC/5675/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an arbitrary order rejecting a medical officer's claim for pay scale parity. The court directed the State to fix the petitioner's pay at par with other similar colleges, pay arrears and pension with interest, and settle claims despite alleged delay.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of impugned order; direction to fix pay at par, pay arrears and pension with interest, within two months.

Purusottam Prasad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 5675 of 2014

¶4

¶5

Purusottam Prasad .… Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

Principal, Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad.

¶10

Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ..... Respondents

¶11

------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

¶12

For the Petitioner : : M/s. Mukesh Bihari Lal For the Respondents : : M/s. Jai Prakash (A.A.G.) -------

¶13

06/ 10.08.2016. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.A.G. for the respondent State.

¶14

The petitioner, through this writ application, has challenged the order as contained in memo No. 1590 dated 01.08.2013, passed by the respondent No. 2, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the claim of the petitioner for parity of the pay-scale on the post of Administrative Officer in Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, (hereinafter referred to as 'PMCH, Dhanbad') with the other similar medical colleges taken over along with PMCH, Dhanbad, has been rejected by the respondent No. 2.

¶15

The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was originally appointed as Sr. P.A.-cum-Secretary, in PMCH, Dhanbad, and subsequently his post was re-designated as Administrative Officer. At the time of taking over of the said College by the State Government, the salary of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.580-840/-, whereas the salary of the Administrative Officers in the other Medical Colleges, taken over along with PMCH Dhanbad, were fixed at Rs.510-1155/-. Thereafter the pay scales were enhanced from time to time, but the petitioner, somehow or the other, was continued to be given the benefit of enhancement of the salary treating his earlier basic salary at Rs.580-840/only, and the petitioner ultimately retired from service on 31.7.2011.

¶16

The petitioner raised his grievances before the concerned authorities from time to time, but no decision was taken. At one point of time, the matter was referred by the then unified State of Bihar in the Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, to the Deputy Secretary of 5^th Pay Revision Committee, Patna, through the letter contained in memo No. 73(1)

¶17

¶18

dated 18.02.1989, which has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ application. In the said letter it was stated by the Under Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, that in each of the four Medical Colleges taken over together by the State Government, including the PMCH, Dhanbad, there is one post of Administrative Officer, and the minimum qualification required for the said post, as well as the duties and responsibilities of the said post in all the Medical Colleges are the same. It was further pointed out that in PMCH, Dhanbad, where the petitioner was working, the post of Administrative Officer was at that point of time carrying the pay-scale of Rs.880-1510/-, whereas in the other similar medical colleges of the State which were taken over together with PMCH, Dhanbad, the post of Administrative Officer was carrying the pay scales of Rs.1000-1820/-. Accordingly, enclosing the representation of the petitioner with the letter dated 18.02.1989 as contained in Annexure-5, the 5^th Pay Revision Committee was recommended by the State Government that the pay scale of the Administrative Officer of the PMCH, Dhanbad, be also fixed at par with the pay scales of the Administrative Officers in the other Medical Colleges in the State.

¶19

The view of the aforesaid letter of the State Government, the 5^th Pay Revision Committee in its report in Chapter-15 paragraph 139, discussed the case of the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the Committee was not aware of the prescribed duties laid down by the respective Governing Bodies of the Medical Colleges and as such the Committee was not in favour of having the same pay-scale necessarily for all the Administrative Officers. It was also stated that without taking into account the scales of pay of various posts in the Medical Colleges taken over by the Government, it would not be fair to disturb the present relativity only in case of one post. The report also shows that the Secretary, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department did not appear before the Committee, due to which the Committee was unable to recommend any change in the scale of pay of Administrative Officer, PMCH, Dhanbad, and it was opined that the Department should look into the matter and take an early decision. The extract of the report of the 5^th Pay Revision Committee has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ application.

¶20

This report was taken as rejection of claim of the petitioner by the respondent State and accordingly, a letter bearing No. 730(1) dated 22.11.1991, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, was issued by the Addl. Director (Medical Education), Health Services, Bihar, Patna, whereby the Principal of the PMCH, Dhanbad, was informed that Fitment-cum-Pay Revision Committee in its report contained in Chapter-15, paragraph 139 had not found any anomaly in the pay-scales and accordingly, the Finance Department had refused to consider the matter. It appears that the copy of this letter was not endorsed to the petitioner.

¶21

¶22

Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 367 of 2011, raising his claim for parity in the pay-scales. This Court, by order dated 09.05.2011 disposed of the said writ application, whereby the petitioner was directed to give a fresh representation raising his grievances to the Director-inChief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, respondent No. 2, and the respondent No. 2, was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It was directed that if the petitioner's claim is found to be genuine, the admitted amount of difference / arrears of pay shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter and if the amount is not paid within the said period, he shall be entitled to get penal interest @ 10% per annum till final payment of the amount to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court as contained in Annexure-8 to this writ application, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application has been passed by respondent No. 2, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the claim of the petitioner has again been rejected.

¶23

The impugned order contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application clearly shows that the respondent No. 2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner, only on the ground that the Fitment-cum-Pay Revision Committee in its report in Chapter-15 paragraph 139, had not found any anomaly in the pay scale of the Administrative Officer of PMCH, Dhanbad, and accordingly, the Finance Department had refused to consider the matter.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the extract of the report of the 5^th Pay Revision Committee, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, wherein it is only stated that the Committee was not in favour of having the same pay-scale necessarily for all the Administrative Officers, as it was not aware of the prescribed duties laid down by the respective Governing Bodies of the Medical Colleges and due to absence of the Secretary, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department the Committee was unable to recommend any change in the scale of pay of Administrative Officer, PMCH, Dhanbad, and it left the matter to be decided by the Department. Learned counsel submitted that as such, it was for the department to take decision in the matter, but wrongly taking this report as rejection of the claim of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has rejected the representation filed by the petitioner, by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again placed reliance on Annexure-5, to the writ application whereby the matter of the petitioner was referred by the State Government to the 5^th Pay Revision Committee, in which it was specifically stated that the minimum qualification of all the Administrative Officers in all the medical colleges, as also the duties and responsibilities of all the Administrative Officers in all the Medical Colleges taken over together were the same. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in view of this

¶25

¶26

admitted fact, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and appropriate direction be issued to the respondent authorities to fix the pay scale of the post of Administrative Officer of PMCH, Dhanbad, at Rs.510-1155/- at the time of taking over the College, and also to fix the successive increase in the pay scales as given to the Administrative Officers of the other similar Medical Colleges and to pay the arrears of the difference of pay scales to the petitioner, as also to fix his pension with arrears accordingly. 10. Learned A.A.G. for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the claim of the petitioner was finally rejected in the year 1991 itself by order as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application communicating the Principal of the PMCH, Dhanbad, that in view of the report of the 5^th Pay Revision Committee (Annexure-6) the State Government was not in a position to accept the claim of the petitioner. Learned A.A.G. submitted that thereafter the petitioner filed the earlier writ petition only in the year 2011, and accordingly, this writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay alone. In this connection learned A.A.G. has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board And Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu , reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein the law has been laid down as follows:-

¶27

" 16 : Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutitional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved prson, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

¶28

Placing reliance on this decision learned A.A.G. submitted that in the

¶29

present case also there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ application is fit to be dismissed on that ground alone.

¶30

Learned A.A.G. has also drawn the attention of this Court to a document that has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, which

¶31

¶32

shows that in a similar circumstance the case of one Administrative Officer working in Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna, which was also taken over along with the PMCH, Dhanbad was also rejected. However, this document clearly shows that the post of Administrative Officer in Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna, was also originally placed in the pay scale of Rs.510-1155/- which initial pay scale the petitioner is also claiming in the present writ application.

¶33

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the claim of the petitioner has finally been rejected by the respondent No. 2, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, by his order dated 01.08.2013 as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application. This order has been passed pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 367 of 2011, whereby the respondent No. 2 was directed to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner and it was also directed that if the petitioner's case was genuine the monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within the period of six weeks thereafter. Prior to that there is no document to show that the petitioner was ever communicated that his claim was rejected by the State Government. In that view of the matter the submission of the learned A.A.G. for the State, that this writ application is hopelessly belated, is only fit to be rejected.

¶34

Now coming to the facts of this case, admittedly, there is no denial to the facts that the minimum qualification for holding the post, as well as the responsibilities and duties of the post of Administrative Officers in the four Medical Colleges taken over together, including the one in which the petitioner was working, are the same. These facts stand established also from the letter dated 18.02.1989 of the State Government, recommending the case of the petitioner before the 5^th Pay Revision Committee, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. In spite of these established facts, if the 5^th Pay Revision Committee came to the conclusion that there was nothing before it to show that the duties prescribed for all the Administrative Officers of the taken over Medical Colleges were the same, it was only due to the fact that the Department of Medical Education and Family Welfare was not represented before the Committee. In any event the Committee left it over for the Department to take final decision in the matter. One fails to understand as to how this could be taken as rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the 5^th Pay Revision Committee, or that the committee did not find any pay anomaly, which has been made the sole ground by the respondent No. 2 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, in the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application. In my considered view this order has been passed by the respondent No.2, in an absolutely mechanical manner, without applying his independent mind to the facts of the case, and is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

¶35

¶36

Constitution of India, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order bearing memo No.1590 dated 01.08.2013, passed by the respondent No. 2, as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application, is hereby, quashed.

¶37

This Court finds that it is an admitted position that the posts of Administrative Officers in all the four Medical Colleges taken over together carry the same duties and responsibilities and even the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer are the same. Admittedly, in the other three Medical Colleges taken over together with the PMCH Dhanbad, the post of Administrative Officer initially carried the pay scale of Rs.510-1155/-, which has been denied to the petitioner for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities. Accordingly, it is directed that the pay scale of the petitioner also, be fixed at the initial stage in the same pay scale of Rs.510-1155/-, giving the successive increase in the pay scales at par as given to the Administrative Officers of the other similar Medical Colleges and to pay the arrears of the difference of pay scales to the petitioner, as also to fix and pay his pension with arrears accordingly. It is directed that all the consequential benefits shall be calculated and the monetary benefits to the petitioner shall be given within the period of two moths from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order.

¶38

Since in the earlier order dated 09.05.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 367 of 2011, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, it was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to get the penal interest @ 10% per annum till final payment is made to the petitioner, and in view of the fact that this Court has come to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by respondent No. 2, it is hereby, further directed that all the monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner along with the penal interest @ 10% per annum, till final payment is made to the petitioner.

¶39

Since the petitioner had worked throughout in PMCH, Dhanbad, it is further directed that all the monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner by the State of Jharkhand, even relating to the period prior to creation of the State of Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand may in turn settle its claim, if any, with the State of Bihar.

¶40

This writ application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.

¶41

(H.C.Mishra, J.)

¶42

D.S.

Purusottam Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purusottam Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs Labour

Hemant Kumar Singh Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Rintu Kumar Singh Alias R K Singh Cisf Constable G D No 922335026 Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Rajeev Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Purushottam Kumar Sinha Vs Managing Director Instrumentation Limited

Raj Narayan Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.