Dismissed

Mahendra Prasad Sharma v. Panchaitee Raj

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2019WPC/2481/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Panchayet Sevak, sought financial benefits from Upgradation of Scale and Assured Career Progression Schemes. The Court held that due to a nine-year delay after retirement and alleged break in service, the petition lacks merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; benefits of 1st and 2nd Upgradation of Scale and ACP were not granted.

Mahendra Prasad Sharma Vs Panchaitee Raj — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No.2481 of 2016

¶3

Mahendra Prasad Sharma ... ... Petitioner

¶4

-V e r s u s -

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Secretary, Pachayeti Raj, Personal, Administrative & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

... RESPONDENTS

¶8

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

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shubham Mishra, AC to SC-II

¶10

06/ 08 .07.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to pay the benefits of first Upgradation of Scale under under 1^st and 2^nd Assured Career Progression Scheme along with other dues/arrears as further clarified by the State Government vide Resolution No.1779 dated 21.05.2014.

¶11

The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayet Sevak in the State Government on 19.01.1968 and was posted at Namkum Block where he served till 31.03.1984. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bero Block, where he continued serving till 30.08.1993 and further, he was posted at different places. Lastly, he joined Arki Block from where he retired from services w.e.f. 30.11.2007. It is specific case of the petitioner that in the entire service career i.e. almost 40 years, no promotion was granted to the petitioner, but in view of Scheme floated by the State Government on the basis of recommendation of 6^th Pay Revision Commission, he is entitled to 1^st Upgradation of Scale on completion of 12 years of services and thereafter, 2^nd Upgradation of Scale on completion of 24 years of serviced and as such, he filed representation before the respondents, claiming therein the financial benefits in terms of upgradation of the pay scale. It is specific case of the petitioner that though he is entitled for the benefit of first upgradation of scale w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 2^nd Upgradaton of scale w.e.f. 01.08.2004, the respondents have never extended the said benefits to the petitioner ever after several representations. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

¶12

Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been denied his legal benefits by the respondents for which he is entitled in accordance with law.

¶13

¶14

Learned counsel further submits that ACP benefits itself was floated in the year, 2014 and as such, Resolution of the Finance Department dated 21.05.2014 is fully applicable in the case of the petitioner and a direction be given to the respondents to consider the same for granting of financial upgradation of scale of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily made out a case that there has been break in service, whereas, from the service records of the petitioner, it appears that there is no break in service as earned leave has to be granted to the petitioner on full pay.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of financial upgradation of scale and drawing the attention of the counter-affidavit, learned counsel further submits that some of the period of earned leave has been granted with full pay while some of period has not been considered for granting full pay as he had willfully remained absent from duty without any information. Learned counsel further submits that even assuming that there was no break in service, but the petitioner has approached this Court after a long delay as the petitioner retired in the year, 2007 itself and has knocked the door of this Court after 9 long years i.e. in year, 2016 and on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶16

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition on the following grounds :

¶17

The arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he is covered with the Resolution dated 21.05.2014 of the Finance Department even if the petitioner has retired from the service in the year, 2007 and benefits has accrued to him as the Resolution of 2014 of the Finance Department shows that ACP benefit was floated in the year, 2014.

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court after 9 long years and no explanation has been given as to why the petitioner has approached this Court after 9 long years of retirement. Admittedly, an employee is entitled for financial upgradation of scale as he has not been granted any regular promotion in lifetime of his service career but the financial upgradation cannot be extended dehors the rules. The

¶19

¶20

learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any Rule, which makes him entitled for financial upgradation as he fulfils the requisite qualification for getting the same even after delay of 9 long years.

¶21

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu , reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 had clearly held that even delay of four years is fatal to the petitioner. Doctrine of proportionality is not attracted in the instant case. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. Remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with ‘Kumbhakarana’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ Court should have thrown the petitioner overboard at the very threshold.

¶22

Financial upgradation is not granted where there is break in service.

¶23

As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, I do not find any merit in the instant case. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.

¶24

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

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

¶26

punit/-

¶27

Mahendra Prasad Sharma v. Panchaitee Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Prasad Sharma v. Panchaitee Raj

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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Home Jail and Disaster Management

Lakshmi Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Ruma Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rati Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kauleshwari Charan Ram Vs Food Corporation Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Pankuria Devi Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its C M D And Ors.