Allowed

Nagendra Kumar Tiwary v. Education

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2018WPC/6482/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by school teachers seeking fixation of pay scale from the date of initial appointment despite belated promotions. Court allowed petitions relying on previous orders and precedent, quashing a specific order and directing authorities to grant benefits and promote petitioners to Grade-7.

What did the court decide?

Ordered verification against prior directions; quashed Office Order dated 08.04.2017; directed grant of benefits w.e.f. due date; directed consideration for promotion to Grade-7 with consequential ben

Nagendra Kumar Tiwary Vs Education — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S).No. 6482 of 2017

¶3

¶4

Nagendra Kumar Tiwary.

¶5

… … … ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus -

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

The Director, Primary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Khunti.

¶11

The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti.

¶12

… … ... …. Respondents

¶13

with

¶14

W.P.(S).No. 6473 of 2017

¶15

¶16

Ramapati Pandey

¶17

Satish Chandra Gyani

¶18

Sushil Kumar Mishra

¶19

Surendra Prasad Seth

¶20

Jalendra Oraon

¶21

Sheela Rani Khakha … … … ... Petitioners - Versus -

¶22

The State of Jharkhand

¶23

The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶24

The Director, Primary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶25

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Khunti.

¶26

The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti.

¶27

… … ... …. Respondents

¶28

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶30

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate

¶31

Ms. Bharti Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Anand, GA-IV Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Sr. SC-III

¶32

¶33

09/ 04.10.2018 Heard the parties.

¶34

2. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are same and similar they have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶35

¶36

3. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for a direction upon the respondents to fix their pay-scale notionally in Graduate Trained Pay-Scale with effect from the date they were granted promotions to Graduate Trained Pay-Scale and thereafter, to make actual payment in the PayScale of Rs.9400-34800/- with G.P. Rs.4600/- after addition of increments etc. with effect from the date of joining of the petitioners in the Graduate Trained Pay-Scale.

¶37

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of recommendation made by Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna against the post of Teacher in Matric Trained PayScale. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted to Grade-II, IV as per the provisions of Jharkhand Nationalized Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 (for short “1993 Rules”) but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the said promotions were granted belatedly to them, for which the petitioners cannot be made responsible. It is the specific case of the petitioners that due to the lapses on the part of the respondents, the actual benefits of promotion was given to the petitioner after more than 14 years in the year 2016. The petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer financial loss on account of aforesaid delay.

¶38

Aggrieved by the said discrimination, petitioners represented before the respondent-authorities but all went in vain. Hence, they have been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court.

¶39

5. At the very outset, Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these writ applications are squarely covered by the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 24.07.2018 in W.P.(S).No.5917 of 2017 and W.P.(S). No. 5920 of 2017 and as such, these cases may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid cases.

¶40

6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that since the issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Hon’ble Court on 24.07.2018 in W.P.(S).No.5917 of 2017 and W.P.(S). No. 5920 of 2017, the present writ petitions may be disposed of in view of order passed in above mentioned cases.

¶41

7. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the directions issued

¶42

¶43

by this Court on 24.07.2018 in W.P.(S).No.5917 of 2017 and W.P.(S). No. 5920 of 2017 and if the cases of the present petitioners are found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.5917 of 2017 and W.P.(S). No. 5920 of 2017, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. The observation made by this Court in W.P.(S).No.5917 of 2017 and W.P.(S). No. 5920 of 2017, is reproduced herein below:-

¶44

“7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that cases of the petitioners need consideration. The issue regarding giving benefits of pay-scale fell for consideration before this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court had observed that teachers are entitled for benefits from the date of their initial appointment and the same was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence, the issue is no more res-integra.

¶45

The Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Dr. Paras Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar [1990 (2) PLJR 248] has held that, “………. (i) the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Super Time Scale of Pay w.e.f. the due date, (ii) the petitioner is entitled to receive the difference of pay at each selection grade of promotion and fixation of pay including the Super Time Scale of Pay and also to fixation of pay in the Super Time Scale of Pay for the purpose of determination of pension, gratuity, etc. and, accordingly, receive pension, gratuity etc. w.e.f. the due date”

¶46

In case of Md. Hafiz vs. State of Bihar [2003 (2) PLJR 44] it was held that, “the plea taken by the State respondents that the material benefits will be given to the petitioner from the date of his joining appears to be wholly misconceived and at the same time, the stand of the State that the meaning of notional promotion is only for the sake of promotion and not for the material benefits also appears to be wholly misconceived. The concept of notional promotion is to ensure monetary benefits to the employees and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get the monetary benefits on account of the promotion given to him with effect from the dates already notified vide notifications, as contained in Annexures 2 and 3”.

¶47

8. The teachers are suffering as they are not getting their benefits though the issue has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thereafter, several writ petitions have been filed for the same relief and several orders have been passed by the Hon’ble Court for granting the benefits of Grade-4 with effect from due date. As such, respondents are directed to take a uniform decision in case of teachers for granting the benefits of Grade-4 Scale keeping into account the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of Arun Sinha & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhnad & Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006 which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and also in case of Dr. Paras Nath Singh Vs. State of

¶48

¶49

Bihar (supra).

¶50

9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legal propositions of law, Office Order dated 08.04.2017, issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Khunti so far it relates the present petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶51

10. Needless to say that as the petitioners are legally entitled for the benefits as prayed for by them in these writ petitions, in view of catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Annexure8 series) and also in view of Annexure-7 in both the writ petitions, the same shall be granted to them, in accordance with law, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The respondents are also directed to consider the cases of the petitioners of W.P.S. No. 5917 of 2017 for their promotion to Grade-7 (Headmaster) with effect from the date it fallen due to them, as per the provisions stipulated in the Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, as the petitioners are having the requisite qualifications for the same and after promoting them to the said post, to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioners.

¶52

11. The State shall consider that each and every teachers are not required to knock the door of this Court for getting the said benefits and a decision to that effect shall be passed, granting the benefits to each and every teachers, who are entitled for the same, in accordance with law.”

¶53

8. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petitions vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in W.P.(S).No.5917 of 2017 and W.P.(S). No. 5920 of 2017 and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petitions are found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petitions, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioners also, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order

¶54

9. With aforesaid observations and directions, both these writ petitions stands allowed.

¶55

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶56

Kunal/-

Nagendra Kumar Tiwary v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Kumar Tiwary v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Nath Munda And Ors. Vs Education

Om Prakash And Ors. Vs Forest

Dr Birendra Kumar Vs Human Resources Department

Ganesh Prasad Singh Vs Forest

Nutan Kumari And Ors. Vs Education

Ramapati Pandey And Ors. Vs Education