Disposed

Krishna Thakur And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2017WPC/6360/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge disposed of a writ petition regarding arrears of salary for assistant teachers. The court recorded that while some were paid differences, the conditional nature of previous promotions prevented a blanket direction for payment. It directed Bihar officials to take steps for pending approvals.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. No direction for payment to Jharkhand petitioners; respondents 3 and 5 directed to take steps for Bihar approval; disposition order passed.

Krishna Thakur And Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6360 of 2007

¶3

Sri Krishna Thakur, son of Late Jagarnath Thakur, retired teacher, resident of Kali Mandir Road, District-Lohardaga

¶4

Mahabir Uraon, son of Late Dewra Uraon, retired teacher, resident of village-Amba, PO&PS-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga

¶5

Nasim Ahmad, son of Abdul Gafar, retired teacher, resident of village Powerganj, District-Lohardaga

¶6

Ram Deo Lohar, son of Late Birash Lohar, assistant teacher, Govt. Middle School, Janagain Bhandra, PO&PS-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, resident of village-Chacheapi, PO&PS-Tuko, District-Ranchi

¶7

Md. Jahid Hussain, son of Late Maniruddin, assistant teacher, Govt. Middle School, Barwa toli, Lohardaga.

¶8

Abdul Razaque Ansari, son of Abdul Quadir Ansari, assistant teacher, Urdu Middle School, Thana Toli, Lohardaga

¶9

Pasupati Nath Mahto, son of Late Kanhaiya Nath Mahato, Incharge Head Master, Middle School Wasri Nagra, PO-Nagra, District-Lohardaga

¶10

Indu Devi, wife of Jora Uraon, resident of Raja Bangla Purana Sukh Bazar, District-Lohardaga

¶11

Ranthi Devi, wife of Late choudhary Uraon, resident of village Jainathpur, PO-Nagni, District-Lohardaga

¶12

... ... Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand

¶15

The Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand at Ranchi Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶16

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

¶17

The Secretary, Finance Department, Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶18

The Secretary, Finance Department, Patna, Bihar

¶19

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi.

¶20

The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga

¶21

The District Education Officer, Lohardaga

¶22

The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga

¶23

... ... Respondents

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶25

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. Sarvendra Kr., J.C. to S.C. (L&C) For the State of Bihar : Mr. Binit Chandra, J.C. to G.A. (Bihar)

¶26

12/09.03.2017 Claiming that by office orders dated 25.10.1997 the petitioners were granted I.A. Trained and Graduate Trained

¶27

¶28

pay-scale, Assistant teachers, 30 in numbers, approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2361 of 1998(R) claiming arrears of salary on account of grant of Intermediate Trained/Graduate Trained pay-scale. The writ petition stood allowed vide an order dated 09.07.2003, against which the State preferred L.P.A. No. 463 of 2005 which was dismissed on 05.09.2006. The Special Leave to Appeal Petition preferred against the order dated 05.09.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 463 of 2005 was dismissed on 12.02.2007.

¶29

Though operative portion of order dated 09.07.2003 does not reflect that a direction was issued to the respondent-State to release arrears of salary; the order reads “the prayer of the writ petitioners are allowed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to forthwith release salary to the petitioners”, without entering into the controversy on this issue, what needs to be recorded that the orders granting I.A. Trained/Graduate Trained pay-scale are the conditional orders. It is recorded in the orders dated 25.10.1997 that if any arrear/mistake is detected, the promotion granted shall be recalled.

¶30

In the counter-affidavit in paragraph no. 3 the respondent-State has pleaded that out of 30 teachers, 21 teachers have been paid difference in the salary whereas, others who do not fulfil the conditions for promotion have not been extended such benefits.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, referring to paragraph no. 8 of the counter-affidavit submits that only when some of the assistant teachers moved this Court by filing contempt petition, the respondent-State complied the order passed by the Writ Court. Based on the above facts, it is contended that denial of payment to the petitioners is only for the reason that they never moved the Contempt Court. At this stage it needs to be clarified that all the petitioners in the present proceeding were not parties in C.W.J.C. No. 2361 of 1998(R). In the face of the stand taken by the respondent-State of Jharkhand

¶32

¶33

in paragraph no. 3 that some of the petitioners do not fulfil conditions for promotion, no direction for payment of arrears of salary can be issued. However, considering the stand taken by the respondent-State of Jharkhand that the matter for grant of differential salary is awaiting approval of the Government of Bihar, the respondent nos. 3 and 5 shall take necessary steps in the matter.

¶34

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶36

Tanuj/-

Krishna Thakur And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Thakur And Ors. v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Ranjit Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Franklin Baxla Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Piroo Gope Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Chhotan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Joseph Kullu And Ors. Vs Human Resources Department

Asutosh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.