Disposed

Vinay Kumar Pathak And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Jul 2019WPC/1365/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the pay scale benefits of Assistant Public Prosecutors. Directed the State Secretary (Finance) to consider the petitioners' entitlement under the fresh service rules, with a decision deadline. Case dismissed/disposed.

What did the court decide?

Case disposed with direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide on entitlements under fresh service rules within eight weeks.

Vinay Kumar Pathak And Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P(S) No. 1365 of 2011

¶3

Vinay Kumar Pathak

¶4

2.Md. Abdus Salam

¶5

3.Ram Bilas Prasad

¶6

Bachan Prasad Srivastava

¶7

Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶10

The Secretary,Department of Home,Ranchi 3.The Secretary, Finance Department,Ranch.

¶11

4.The Joint Seretary,Govt of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶12

Respondents

¶13

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Petitioner : Mr Indrajit Sinha Adv. . For the Res. :-Mr. J.C to G.A

¶14

3/Dated: 9.07.2019

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the the part of the notification as contained in Memo no. 2515 dated 27.6. 2009 whereby the benefit of ACP has been granted in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-250-12000/- and benefit of second ACP have been granted in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-27513500/-. It is further prayed for quashing the said part of the notification dated 27.6.2009

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were working as regular cadres of Assistant Public Prosecutor and gradation lists of Assistant Public Prosecutor were also prepared and they are appointed by the State Government or Central Government in terms of section 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. He further submits that in view of the insertion to the explanation to section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 by the Amending Act, 2005 with effect from 18.12.1978 it would be deemed that the Cadre created by the State of Jharkhand as mentioned in the letter dated 9.4.2008 was a Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers in terms of Explanation(a) to Section 24(6) of the Cod of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents

¶19

-2-

¶20

submit that in absence of service rules, the hierarchy of their promotional posts and the scale palpable to each post cannot be determined. In the absence of hierarchy of posts the pay structure payable and consequently the scale payable after the grant of first and second A.C.P cannot be determined. The process of preparation of service rules for the Assistant Public Prosecutors is underway and as soon as the same is approved by the competent authority anomaly in the pay scale, if any , shall be removed. The petitioners have been granted the benefit of A.C.P as per provisions of resolution dated 4,8.2002 in the Department of finance, in the scale of Rs. 750012000/- and Rs. 8000-135000/- on the grant of first and second A.C.P respectively. Referring to the counter affidavit he submits that after framing of service rules and in the event of the petitioners being found entitled to any higher scale, the same shall be paid to the petitioners byway of arrears.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit and submitted that Service rules have already been prepared and as such the petitioners are entitled to considered in the fresh service rule.

¶22

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that fresh service rule has already been framed and also in view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioners will be considered after framing of the service rule, this writ petition is being disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 who will consider the case of the petitioners in the light of rule framed as stated in the rejoinder. Respondent no.2 shall take decision in this regard within 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order

¶23

With the above observation this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

Vinay Kumar Pathak And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Pathak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikash Kumar Mishra Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Kewal Singh Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors.

Bijan David Balmuchu Bijan B Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shree Lal Jee Prasad Vs Mineral Area Development Autho

Preeti Sahay Vs Bank of India and Ors.

Ritesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Bikash Kumar Mishra Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Kewal Singh Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors.

Bijan David Balmuchu  Bijan B Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shree Lal Jee Prasad Vs Mineral Area Development Autho

Preeti Sahay Vs Bank of India and Ors.

Ritesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bijan David Balmuchu Bijan B Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.