Disposed

Elbina Kongari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2023WPC/2467/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition regarding service continuity, pay protection, and increments for Graduate Trained Teachers. The Court directed state respondents to complete the entire process within three months, ensuring proposals are received or rejected with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State respondents to conclude the entire service continuity and pay protection process within three months, including decisions on proposals and payment of benefits.

Elbina Kongari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2467 of 2021

¶2

----

¶3

Elbina Kongari W/o Vijay Xavier, resident of House No.C-39, Road No.3, Zone No.10, Azad Path Baridih Colony, PO Birsanagar, PS Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East).

¶4

Shipra Nupur Ekka W/o Rajan John Xalxo, resident of Harihar Singh Road, Tetar Toli, PS Bariatu, District Ranchi.

¶5

3. Dead

¶6

Dinesh Kumar S/o Harihar Mahto, resident of Ratnadih Purnidih, PO Koiridih, PS Suriya, District Giridih.

¶7

Krishna Kumar Kanhaiya S/o Sitaram Sao, resident of Jugra Hazaribag, PO PS District Hazaribag.

¶8

Amrendra Kumar Singh S/o Digambar Prasad Singh, resident of Barasunsun Dabra, PO PS Karmatand, District Jamtara.

¶9

Bijay Kumar Dhoubey S/o Sri Ramnath Choubey, resident of Sirsi, Near Angels High School Barkagaon Road, PO PS District Hazaribag.

¶10

Manish Kumar Trigunayat S/o Ganesh Prasad Trigunayat, resident of Village PO Naini, PS Lar, District Deoria.

¶11

Sudha Mishra W/o Anup Kumar Mishra, resident of Rose Wood C- 23, Ashiyana Garden Jamshedpur Near Sai Temple, PO PS Sonari, District Singhbhum.

¶12

Awnish Kumar S/o Late Birendra Prasad Roy, resident of Nayatola, PO Rahimpur, PS Muffasil, District Khagaria.

¶13

Amit Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar, resident of Village Kubri, PO PS Hirodih, District Giridih.

¶14

Suresh Prasad Kushwaha S/o Bhuneshwar Prasad Kushwaha, resident of Ward No.5 Nawadih, PO Nawadih, PS Markacho, District Koderma.

¶15

Hira Lal Gupta S/o Narayan Saw, resident of Ward No.4, PO Nawadih, PS Markacho, District Koderma.

¶16

Divya Prakash Dubey S/o Muneshwar Dubey, resident of Ahilya Kutir, Sahid Asram Road, Rajendra Nagar, PO B. Deoghar, PS Deoghar, District Deoghar.

¶17

Binod Kumar son of Mahendra Prasad Saw, resident of village Hirodih Pandeydih, PO Kisgo Dhanwar, PS Hirodih, District Giridih. … Petitioners

¶18

-versus-

¶19

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶20

Director, Secondary Education Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶21

Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶22

District Education Officer, Ranchi.

¶23

District Education Officer, Hazaribag.

¶24

District Education Officer, Koderma.

¶25

District Education Officer, Giridih

¶26

District Education Officer, Khunti.

¶27

District Education Officer, Deoghar 11. District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. … Respondents

¶28

----

¶29

-: 2 :-

¶30

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶31

----

¶32

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C) II

¶33

4/ 06.01.2023 I.A. No. 5915 of 2022

¶34

This interlocutory application has been filed by petitioner No.1. By filing this interlocutory application, petitioner No.1 has prayed to expunge her name from the array of petitioners as she does not want to proceed with this writ petition.

¶35

2. Considering the averments made in this interlocutory application, at the risk of the petitioner No.1, name of petitioner No.1, Elbina Kongari, is expunged from the array of the petitioners. Let her name be deleted from the cause title.

¶36

3. This interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶37

W.P.(S) No.2467 of 2021

¶38

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for

¶39

the respondents.

¶40

5. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself with the consent of the parties.

¶41

6. Petitioners, in this writ petition have prayed for the benefit of pay protection as per Rule along with one annual increment @ 3% on basic pay scale as they have been appointed as Graduate Trained Teacher, having three years teaching experience in a Government School.

¶42

7. To cut short the matter, counsel appearing for the Staterespondents refers to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 on 08.08.2022. He submits that in paragraph 12 of the said counter affidavit, a stand has been taken that proposal in respect of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 has been received for their service continuity and pay protection and the same has been forwarded to the Finance Department along with other proposals. So far as other petitioners are concerned, in paragraph 13 of the Counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that proposals have not been received through proper channel for their continuity of service and pay protection. Further, in paragraph 14, it has been mentioned that Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand has already directed all the District Education Officers of the State to submit the proposal of Service Continuity and pay protection, vide Memo No.1791 dated 23.09.2021.

¶43

-: 3 :-

¶44

8. I have gone through the records as also the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the said counter affidavit, which reads as under:-

¶45

12. That it is stated and submitted that as per Resolution No.3903/F Dated 20.11.2014, the proposal of petitioner no.1 & 5 has been received for their service continuity and pay protection and the same has already been forwarded to the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand along with the other 87 proposals.

¶46

13. That it is stated and submitted that the except petitioner No.1 & 5, none of the petitioners proposal have applied/ received through proper channel for continuity of their services and pay protection thereof.

¶47

14. That it is stated and submitted that the Education, the Director, Secondary Jharkhand, Ranchi has already ordered/directed to all the District Education Officers of the State to submit the proposal of service continuity and pay protection thereof vide Memo No.1791 Dated 23.09.2021 and also reminder Letter vide Memo No.1972 Dated 20.07.2022.

¶48

15. That it is stated and submitted that on receipt of application/representation of the concerned District Education Office, the said proposal will be sent/ forwarded to the Finance Department for its approval/ concurrence as soon as possible.

¶49

9. From the aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the case of the petitioners is under active consideration, as proposals have been sent in favour of the petitioners Nos.1 to 5 and so far as other petitioners are concerned, same will be considered once proposals in their respect is received.

¶50

10. Considering the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, I direct the State-respondents to conclude the entire process within three months. It is expected that the proposal in respect of the remaining petitioners for whom proposals have not yet been sent, will be sent at the earliest, if they qualify for the benefits. Further, if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to any monetary benefits, same should be paid to the petitioners within the aforesaid time. If any part of the claim of one or the other petitioner is turned down, the reasons thereof should also be communicated to the individual concerned petitioner within the aforementioned time.

¶51

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶52

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶53

Kumar/S.K./Cp-02

Elbina Kongari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elbina Kongari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushalaya Devi Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Julius Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Ishwar Dutt Kujur Vs Education

Maksud Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Prakash Dusadh Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ram Chandra Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand