Three petitioners challenged the order quashing a memo that granted financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The High Court held that the memo was quashed due to lack of Finance approval, denying accrued rights.
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.
Writ Petition (S) No.6431 of 2006
…
In the Matter of an Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
…
… … Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
… … Respondents.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhaiya Vishvjeet Kumar, Advocate : For the Respondents Mr. Saket Upadhyay, A.C. to G.A.-III
P R E S E N T: -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
By Court
Heard Mr. Bhaiya Vishvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents-State of Jharkhand.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing memo no. 655 dated 20.06.2006 whereby, the petitioners have been allowed first and second financial upgradation with effect from 09.08.1999 under Assured Career Progression Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs.5,500-9,000/- and Rs.6,50010,500/- respectively.
2
Mr. Bhaiya Vishvjeet Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of resolution no.370/M dated 16.02.2006 wherein the hierarchy of post and the scale of pay for promoting the Geological Analyst has been laid down in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500 –10,500/- and Rs. 8,000 to 13,500/- respectively. He further submits that in view of the resolution dated 16 . 02.2006, the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.6500-10,500/- and Rs.8,000-13,500/- respectively. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners it was resolved by the Department of Mines and Geology that 50% vacant post of Chemist Non-Gazetted will be filled up by the cadre of Senior Geological Analyst and 50% by way of direct recruitment. He further submits that the Government of Jharkhand has earmarked the hierarchy of the post for the purpose of promotion, which is evident from Annexure 7 dated 16.02.2006. He submits that in view of the resolution dated 16.02.2006, the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 6,500 –10,500/- and Rs. 8,000 to 13,500/respectively whereas, by Annexure-8 to the writ petition it has been wrongly fixed. He submits that once the right is accrued in favour of the petitioners that cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. He further submits that resolution no. 370/M dated 16.02.2006 has been withdrawn by the resolution no. 838 dated 04.04.2007 and he had challenged that resolution by way of I.A. No. 2402 of 2007 substantiating their claim on the point of right accrued in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied in the case of Arbind Bhushan Dey & Ors with analogous cases Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors . reported in 2009 (1) JLJR 338 , especially in para-10 which reads as under:-
“10. Prima facie, it appears to be a clear cut case of discrimination and double standard on the part of the respondents in violation of their own circular and order, issued on 20.2.1981. It is a settled law that a legal, vested and accrued right cannot be taken away retrospectively. In the instant case when the very advertisement was that the petitioners will be entitled to Graduate Science Teachers Pay Scale from the date when they achieve or acquire the qualification, based on which the petitioners acted upon and qualified for the same, the State cannot resile from its own commitment and undertaking and even otherwise rule of estoppel will apply against it. The respondents’ reliance on the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 is also misplaced and misconceived. These Rules were actually meant as Promotion Rules and for implementation of the Central Pay Scale with effect from 1st January 1986 and the same cannot apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case.”
On the other hand, Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents-State submits that in view of Rule 12 and 35 of the Jharkhand
3
Executive Instruction any financial upgradation need to be implemented only after the consent of the Finance Department and in view of Rule 55 of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, i.e. again repeated and that was not complied with that’s why resolution no.370/M dated 16.02.2006 has been withdrawn by the Government. He further submits that ACP benefits have been provided to the petitioners in accordance with the directions of the Finance Department. He submits that the office order no. 655 dated 20.06.2006 is only in accordance with the law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Government after considering the fact that there is no approval of the Finance Department in view of the aforesaid rules and considering that aspect of the matter resolution no. 370/M dated 16.02.2006 has been withdrawn.
In that view of the matter, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that right has already been accrued is not accepted by this Court. Rule 55 of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department has also not been complied with by issuing the earlier memo and accordingly, that has been withdrawn. Thus, it cannot be said that on a wrong decision right has already been accrued in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. )
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: The 16th August, 2019 VK/N.A.F.R.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether accrual of pay scale rights can be denied when the relevant executive memo was withdrawn due to lack of Finance Department approval and non-compliance with Rule 55.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arbind Bhushan Dey & Ors Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.Distinguished¶27
Arbind Bhushan Dey & Ors Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2009 (1) JLJR 338
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nawal Kishore Singh
Trilok Nath Jha
Bharat Narayan Mishra
Yashwant Singh
Chitranjan Sharma
State of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
