Dismissed

Sikandar Kumar Roy v. the Union of India through Department of Human Resources

Jharkhand HC10 Feb 2023WPC/4330/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition filed by Para-Teachers seeking regularization and pay parity with regular Assistant Teachers. The court held that the issue was already decided in a previous Division Bench judgment (W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2016), noting that contract-based employees cannot claim such benefits under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners to be guided by the observations in W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2016.

Sikandar Kumar Roy Vs the Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4330 of 2019

¶3

Sikandar Kumar Roy

¶4

Rabindra Mandal

¶5

Tarkeshwar Tiwari

¶6

Sunil Kumar

¶7

Dinesh Kumar Bhaiya

¶8

Manoj Kumar Mishra

¶9

Binod Kumar Mandal

¶10

Suresh Kumar Mandal

¶11

Md. Anwar Ansari

¶12

Nand Kishore Mandal

¶13

Surendra Kumar Roy

¶14

Bhikhari Singh

¶15

Vikash Chandra Pandey

¶16

Arjun Mahto

¶17

Narayan Verma

¶18

Sri Kant Verma

¶19

Rinku Kumar Jha

¶20

Narsingh Prasad Verma

¶21

Dilip Mahto

¶22

Rajeev Ranjan

¶23

Sudhanshu Kumar Deo

¶24

Kundan Kumar

¶25

Sudhanshu Kumar Deo

¶26

Mukesh Prasad Yadav 25. Srikant Verma 26. Harihar Mahto 27. Maheshwar Mahto 28. Anil Kumar Verma 29. Arun Kumar 30. Rajesh Kumar Yadav 31. Surendra Kuamr Yadav 32. Basudeo mandal 33. Rajesh Kumar Mishra 34. Md. Mustaf Ansari 35. Mohan Prasad Verma 36. Niranjan Kumar Roy 37. Dewa Nand Mistry 38. Md. Qutubuddin Faizi 39. Shyam Sundar Yadav 40. Muchkund Prasad Singh 41. Shreekant Tadav 42. Kamal Kishore Yadav 43. Panchanan Yadav 44. Pradeep Kumar Mahato

¶27

…. …. Petitioners

¶28

Versus

¶29

1. The Union of India through Department of Human Resources, New Delhi.

¶30

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ranchi.

¶31

¶32

The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶33

The Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.

¶34

The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Deoghar.

¶35

…. … Respondents

¶36

¶37

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶38

¶39

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, Assit. SGI

¶40

¶41

9/ 10.02.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for a direction upon the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners, who have been appointed on the post of Para-Teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, as also for pay parity vis-a-vis regular Assistant Teachers, since they are discharging similar duty as that of regular Assistant Teachers.

¶42

Facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged by different educational committees as para teachers under the scheme known as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, a flagship programme of Govt. of India to universalize the elementary education and the Central Government in partnership with State Government has implemented this scheme. After the engagement of the petitioners as para Teachers, they started to impart education to students. The petitioners moved this Court for regularisation of their services.

¶43

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that similar issue fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2016 and other analogous matters, in which, the Division Bench, after hearing the counsel for the parties at length, disposed of the same. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is same and similar to the aforesaid case and as such, the instant writ petition may kindly be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments, as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶44

¶45

In such situation, this Court is of the view that since the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2016, vide order dated 16.12.2022, nothing remains to be decided in the instant case afresh. The Division Bench has decided the issue inter alia in para-28 at page-379 in following terms:-

¶46

“28. …… ….. ….

¶47

Since herein the writ petitioner has accepted the offer of appointment, which has been made on contract on payment of honorarium and are being governed with their own rules carved out in exercise of power conferred 380 under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, once having accepted the terms of the contract and rendered their services they cannot turn around and claim parity to get minimum of pay-scale. Since the writ petitioners are the engagee on contract basis depending upon the contract and as such on that count also there cannot be direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise the same will amount to re-writing the contract, which is not permission in law.”

¶48

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition afresh. It is made clear that the case of the present petitioners shall be guided with the observations and directions as observed in the aforesaid judgment.

¶49

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶50

R.Kr.

Sikandar Kumar Roy v. the Union of India through Department of Human Resources

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar Kumar Roy v. the Union of India through Department of Human Resources

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jit Mohan Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand and Others

Sudhir Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amritesh Singh Alias Amritesh Singh Chauhan Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Vijoy Shankar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand