The High Court held that the petitioner's appointment as a Class-III employee was promotion, not a new appointment. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim the second financial upgradation benefit as he had not completed the requisite 24 years of continuous service under the specific scheme conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6005 of 2008
Shri Sukhdeo Prasad, son of Late Bajo Sao, resident of behind Veterinary Hospital, Bhandari Dih, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. -Giridih, District-Giridih
..... Petitioner --Versus--
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.The Regional Director, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh
5.The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Giridih
6.The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
7.The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi
…. Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, JC to AAG For Resp.no.7(Acct.Gen.) : Mr. S. Shrivastava, Advocate
10 / 03.03.2017 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as, prayers at clause (i) and (ii) in the amended writ-petition are concerned, these stand satisfied. This amended writ-petition is mainly confined to challenge to the orders dated 11.12.2009 and 04.01.2010 by which benefit of 2nd Financial Upgradation has been withdrawn and for a direction for grant of 2nd Financial Upgradation.
upgradation was granted to the Government employees with effect from 09.08.1999. The scheme was floated to extend financial incentives to the Government employees who, either on account of unavailability of sufficient promotional posts or since there is no promotional post, were not promoted. Under the ACP scheme such employees shall be compensated by granting financial upgradation. There are, however, several conditions for grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, inter-alia, (i) the employee must have completed 12/24 years of continuous service, (ii) he has acquired the eligibility for promotion on the promotional post, (iii) he has passed the Departmental Examination/Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination/ Accounts Examination (if needed), (iv) the employee was not granted promotion or was granted only one promotion, (v) he has not been punished/convicted in a Departmental Proceeding or a criminal trial etc. It has been specifically indicated in the Resolution dated 14.08.2002 that the period of ad hoc, temporary, contract, etc., shall not be counted towards the total period of service. The respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner, who was initially appointed on 28.09.1964, was promoted on a Class-III post on 13.11.1973. He was subsequently, promoted to the post of Head Clerk vide letter dated 07.12.1977, and thus, he cannot be granted the 2nd Financial Upgradation. The petitioner has claimed that once his revised pay is fixed in the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/-, he should be granted pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- because he has completed 24 years of continuous service. 4. On a reading of the stipulations under Resolution dated 14.08.2002, I find that the plea raised by the petitioner that his appointment on the Class-III post on 13.11.1973 is a new appointment and not a promotion is misconceived. The petitioner appeared in the Limited Departmental Examination for promotion on a Class -III post.
His appointment is not a new appointment rather, in service jurisprudence, it is described as appointment by promotion. The contention insofar as, grant of similar benefit to Prabhu Dayal Singh, Shankar Kumar Pandey, Naresh Ram, Radhe Krishna Choudhary and others is concerned, I find that brief history of their service records is not on record. Moreover, once in view of Resolution dated 14.08.2002 claim of the petitioner fails, it cannot be granted on a plea that few others have been extended the benefit of pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. 5. Insofar as, fixation of pension is concerned, the benefit of revised pay-scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/- shall automatically flow to the petitioner. However, the prayer for grant of penal interest in not releasing the benefit of pay-revision is declined. The petitioner, who superannuated from service in the year 2003, approached this Court in the year 2008 and thereafter, this writ-petition was amended at his instance. From the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, it cannot be said that his correct pay-fixation was delayed on account of intentional act/acts of the respondents and therefore, it is held that he is not entitled for grant of penal interest.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
SI/,
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's appointment on a Class-III post was a new appointment or one by promotion.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme adopted vide Resolution dated 14.08.2002.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to penal interest for the delay in fixation of revised pay-scale.
Sukhdeo Prasad
The State of Jharkhand
The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
The Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
The Regional Director, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh
The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Giridih
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
