Allowed

Gura Hembrom v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Feb 2021WPC/917/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed merged writ petitions challenging orders that cancelled teachers' B.Sc. trained promotions and downgraded them to Grade-I. Relying on precedent holding the 1993 Rules prospective, the Court quashed the orders as violating vested rights.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders cancelling promotions and downgrading petitioners to Grade-I in seniority lists were quashed and set aside.

Gura Hembrom Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 992 of 2007

¶4

1.Smt. Suro Singh Kuntiya

¶5

2.Ramesh Kumar Sharma

¶6

3.Smt Rekha Kumari

¶7

4.Jaiprakash Singh ..… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand.

¶10

The Director, Secondary Education, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶11

The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Singhbhum West, Chaibasa.

¶12

The Treasury Officer, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa.

¶14

..... Respondents

¶15

with

¶16

W.P.(S) No. 1415 of 2007

¶17

Namita Pingua ..… Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Jharkhand.

¶20

The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶21

The District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa.

¶22

The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.

¶23

The Treasury Officer, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum.

¶24

..... Respondents

¶25

with

¶26

W.P.(S) No. 6219 of 2008

¶27

Sudhir Mohan Bakshi ..… Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

The State of Jharkhand.

¶30

The Secretary, Human Resources Development (HRD) Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶31

The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶32

The District Superintendent of Education, (D.S.E.), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, DistrictWest Singhbhum.

¶33

The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum.

¶34

The Treasury Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum.

¶35

The District Accounts Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum.

¶36

..... Respondents

¶37

with

¶38

W.P.(S) No. 917 of 2007

¶39

1.Gura Hembrom.

¶40

Damuram Kerai @ Karai.

..… Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

¶45

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.

¶46

The Deputy Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa.

¶47

The Director Primary Education, State of Jharkhand at Ranchi. ..... Respondents

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶49

¶50

For the Petitioners : Mr. H.K.Mahto, Advocate Ms. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C.(Mines)III Mr. Aashish Shekhar, A.C to S.C. (L&C)II Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.C to Sr. S.C.I ---------

¶51

22/Dated: 10^th February, 2021

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶53

2. Since common issue is involved in all these writ applications; as such, with the consent of the parties, all of them are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (S) No. 992 of 2007 has been taken as a lead case.

¶54

3. The aforesaid writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in Memo No. 3745, 3757, 3736 and 3743 all dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure-3 series) issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioners’ B.Sc. trained scale has been cancelled.

¶55

4. Mr. H.K.Mahto learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in all these writ applications has already been decided in the case of Mithleshwar Verma and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & others [W.P.(S) No. 4843 of 2006]; whereby this Court after

¶56

¶57

relying the judgment passed in the case of Arvind Bhushan Dey & other analogous cases reported in 2009 (1) JLJR 338 decided the issue in favour of the petitioners.

¶58

The issue whether the Rules of 1993 were made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or are prospective in nature were the subject matter of consideration in the case of Arvind Bhushan Dey (Supra) and in para 11 of the aforesaid judgment it was held that Rules 1993 will not be applicable in the case of petitioners and are prospective in nature and further held that the impugned action of the respondents canceling the promotions of the petitioners and showing them under Grade-I in the seniority list cannot be sustained in law as it amounts to taking away the vested rights accrued before coming into force of the Rules of 1993. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below;

¶59

“I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. From perusal of the impugned orders contained at Annexure-10 it appears that the respondents have come to a finding that the Rules of 1993 were applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and accordingly, for being considered to be promoted under Grade-IV i.e. B.S.c Trained Scale, teachers under Grade-I i.e. MatricIntermediate pay scale are required to remain in the said scale for a period of 8 years . These petitioners were found to have been granted promotion to the B.S.C Trained Scale without complying with the aforesaid requirement of 'Kalavadhi' ( Minimum Time Rule) of 8 years and on the basis of audit objection the impugned order canceling their

¶60

¶61

earlier promotion and grant of scale have been issued as also order for grant of promotion on the basis of fresh gradation list was issued.

¶62

The issue whether the rules of 1993 were made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or are prospective in nature were the subject matter of consideration in the case of Arvind Bhushan Dey (Supra) by this Court. In the said case petitioners had approached for grant of Graduate Trained Pay Scale w.e.f. the respective date on which they had acquired teachers training. The issue which were raised and considered by this Court have been indicated in para 7 of the said Judgment. One of the issue was whether the Rules of 1993 can be given retrospective effect from 1986 taking away the accrued, vested and legal right of the petitioners. The said question has been answered by this Court in Para 11 of the said Judgment which is quoted herein below:-

¶63

“Para-11:- The argument of the learned counsel for the State that the Promotion Rules, 1993 came into effect from 1st January, 1986 and further 'Grade' means 'Scale' and the petitioners were not entitled to Graduate Science Trained Pay Scale since they achieved their qualification of training only in 1989 is misconceived and unsustainable. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that in any case the rule will apply retrospectively since 1986. This argument is also fallacious and against the settled law”.

¶64

In the present case from the facts which has been brought on record it is not in dispute is that these petitioners were granted B.S.c Trained Scale prior to 1993 i.e. coming into force of the Rules, 1993 by virtue of the orders contained at Annexure-2 series. The said promotion to the B.Sc. trained Scale granted was to take effect from the respective dates on which they acquired qualification of training. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 acquired the said training in the year 1987 while the other 3 petitioners had acquired the said training in the year 1992. These petitioners on grant of such promotion continued in the B.Sc. trained scale, thereafter, till issuance of the

¶65

¶66

impugned orders and the seniority list. In these circumstance, obviously the promotion granted to these petitioners to the B.Sc. trained Pay Scale at the relevant point of time were not in teeth of any existing Rules or Circular prevalent at that time as the Rules of 1993 have been held to be prospective in nature after its notification in1993. The impugned action of the respondents, prima facie amount to reduction in rank of these petitioners which can only be done in accordance with the procedures laid under the law as stipulated under the provision of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, therefore, had acquired vested right by grant of such promotion which is sought to be undone by issuance of the order vide Annexure 10 series and have been shown under Grade-I in the seniority list contained at Annexure-5.

¶67

In the totality of facts and circumstance discussed and the reasons indicated herein above, the impugned action of the respondents canceling the promotions of the petitioners as also showing them under Grade-I in the seniority list, therefore, cannot be sustained in law as it amounts to taking away the vested rights accrued before coming into force of the Rules of 1993. The impugned action amounting to reduction of rank / grade without following the procedures of law by way of Annexure-10 series are, accordingly quashed. So far as the list contained at Annexure-5 showing the petitioners under Grade-I, they are also held to be unsustainable, so far as they relates to the petitioners. The respondents would take steps to rectify the seniority list, accordingly.

¶68

The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”

¶69

5. Mr. Mahto fairly submits that since it is a very old matter and he is having no contact with his clients; however, the cases may be disposed of by quashing the

¶70

¶71

impugned orders in the line of judgment passed in the case

¶72

of Mithleshwar Verma & Ors (Supra).

¶73

6. Learned counsels for the respondent State fairly submits that the issue involved in this case has already been decided in the aforesaid case . 7. Having regards to the fact of the case and the aforesaid submissions of the parties, all these writ applications are allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Memo Nos. 3745, 3757, 3736 & 3743 dated 29.12.2006 in W.P.(S) No. 992 of 2007, Memo No. 3761 dated 29.12.2006 in W.P.(S) No. 1415 of 2007, Memo No. 2946 dated 03.11.2008 in W.P.(S) No. 6219 of 2008 and Memo No. 3747 and 3760 dated 29.12.2006 in W.P.(S) No. 917 of 2007; are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶74

8. Accordingly, all these writ applications stands allowed.

¶75

9. Let the copy of this order be sent to the postal address of the respective petitioners.

¶76

Amardeep/

Gura Hembrom v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gura Hembrom v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Roshan Vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited

Jitendra Malto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dr.Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sudhir Mohan Bakshi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt.Suro Singh Kuntiya Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramjivan Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.