In this writ petition, petitioners challenged a decision granting only a 6% increment instead of the claimed 25%, alleging non-discrimination. The Court dismissed the petition, holding the post was contractual and no right to a specific increment accrued.
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 AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3208 of 2014
1. The State of Jharkhand
-2-
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumir Prasad For the Respondents : Mr. Krishna Murari (For R. 6 and 7) Mr. Sunil Singh, A.C. to S.C. Mines (For R. No. 1, 3, 4)
-----
15/Dated 16th July, 2019 Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sumir Prasad appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Krishna Murari for Respondent No.s 6 and 7 and Mr. Sunil Singh for Respondent No.s 1, 3 and 4.
2. The petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing part of the order and decision taken in 24th Meeting held on 19.10.2009 (Annexure 4 to the memo of the writ petition), by which it was decided to provide increment of 6% instead of 25% on the ground that 19% increment has already been provided to the petitioners.
3. Mr. Sumir Prasad, counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to an advertisement (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued by Jharkhand Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad (JSPP), petitioners applied for the post of Additional District Programme Officer and were appointed on the said post on 24.09.2007 under Sarb Shiksha Abhiyan on a consolidated
-3-
emolument of Rs. 14,595/-.
He submits that decision taken in 24th Meeting held on 19.10.2009 (Annexure 4 to the memo of the writ petition), i.e. decision of the Committee, is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature to the extent that increment was paid to the petitioners at 6% only instead of 25%, which was paid to all other employees appointed on contract basis on the ground that 19% increment has already been provided to the petitioners at the time of appointment and the said ground is not correct in view of the advertisement in question and other documents.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 6 and 7 submits that it is crystal clear from Annexure 1, which is the advertisement with respect to Sarb Shiksha Abhiyan that recruitment of senior professionals were made on short term contractual basis. The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis.
He draws the attention of this Court to the appointment letters of the petitioners (Annexure 2 to the memo of the writ petition) and submits that in the appointment letters it is stated that their services were to be taken from the date of joining till 30.09.2008. On the basis of this, he submits that it is for the authority to decide whether to take the services of the petitioners after 30.9.2008 or not. Relying on this clause of the appointment letter, he submits that the appointment of the petitioners were purely contractual in nature.
He further submits that decision dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure 4 to the memo of the writ petition) was taken by a High Power Executive Committee of JSPP headed by the Chief Secretary.
He further submits that Annexure 10 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner has been issued pursuant to an application by the petitioners under Right to Information Act, wherein it is clearly provided that these petitioners were entitled to an emolument of Rs. 12302/-, whereas all of a sudden they have been paid Rs. 14,595/-.
He submits that, considering the above facts, claim of the petitioners is not tenable in the eye of law as the post in question is not a civil post and the petitioners have not been discriminated. However, petitioners have been provided increment at the rate of 6% and the decision regarding
-4-
this has been taken by a High Power Committee after taking into account all the material facts produced before them and as such no interference of this Court is required in this writ petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into the nature of dispute, particularly the nature of appointment of the petitioners and documents supplied to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from which it is apparent that the petitioners have been provided Rs.14,595/-, whereas they were entitled to Rs.12,302/- at the time of appointment. Moreover, it was the decision of a High Power Committee to give increment at the rate of 6% to the petitioners. The post is also contractual and no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners to provide increment at the rate of 25%.
6. As a cumulative effect of the above facts and reasons, no case is made out in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
s.m
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing of the decision limiting increment to 6% on the ground of non-discrimination is maintainable.
Whether a right accrued in favour of the petitioners for a 25% increment in their contractual appointment.
Whether the decision of the High Power Executive Committee regarding increment is amenable to judicial interference.
Ashish Kumar and others
State of Jharkhand
Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand-cum-Chairman, JEPC.
Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
