Writ petition filed by two officers seeking revision of their pay scales. The High Court directed the Director of Handloom Sericulture to reconsider the cases in light of a 2007 amendment.
Petitioner directed to be remitted to Director of Handloom Sericulture to consider case in light of 05.02.2007 amendment within six weeks.
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. 3890 OF 2011
1.Anisha Bhengra, wife of Sri Biru Kachhap,resident of village Khijri, P.O Namkum, P.S Namkum Dist Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt. of Industries, Govt. of Jharkhand, office located at Nepal House, Building, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Distt.Ranchi.
2.The Secretary, Deptt. of Finance Govt. of Jharkhand, Office located at Project Building HEC Area, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, Distt-Ranchi.
3.The Director of Handloom Sericulture and Handicrafts, Govt. of Jharkhand, Industries Department Office located at Nepal House Building, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
4.The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi office located at Ratu Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi.
….. Respondents
-----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arbind Kr. A.C. to S.C.I
th Order No.4 : Dated 18 July, 2019
Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to revise scale of pay of 1st /2nd and 3rd ACP.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been provided 1st and 2nd ACP by way of pay up gradation vide order dated 20.01.2006 being next higher scale of pay. He further submits that in Paragraph-
-2-
3(X) of Resolution No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 has been amended and superseded through policy decision of the State Govt. contained in Resolution No. 288 dated 05.2.2007 and Resolution No. 636 dated 08.3.2007 and as such the petitioner’s pay scale is required to be revised as being promotional scale of pay as applicable in the case of the petitioner which comes to Rs.4000/- to 6000/-first ACP and Rs. 4500/- to 7000 as 2nd ACP.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has been provided the pay scale as it is the Rule i.e. cadre rule has not yet been finalized by the Department of Industry showing existing circular next scale has been given to the applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draw attention of this Court to resolution dated 05.02.2007 which is annexed as Annexure-4 to this writ application, whereby the Clause 3(x) has been amended and on this basis he submits that Clause 3 of Resolution dated 14.08.2002 is the effective and as such he is entitled for the pay to the next promotion scale.
In light of submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner taking into account the amendment dated 05.02.2007, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order taking into account the amendment dated 05.02.2007. The respondent no.3 will pass a speaking order in this regard within six weeks from the date of receipt of production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SD/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's pay scale requires revision based on the amend resolution dated 05.02.2007?
Anisha Bhengra
Pramila Chturvedi
State of Jharkhand
Director of Handloom Sericulture and Handicrafts
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
