Allowed

Shivdani Prasad v. Human Resource Development

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2023WPC/5642/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held the petitioner, a trained teacher with B.P.Ed degree, was entitled to the trained teacher salary scale. It directed payment of salary from joining date till 1.4.1980 along with 10% interest from 27.8.2012, ordering compliance within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay trained teacher scale salary from date of joining till 1.4.1980 and interest @10% per annum from 27.8.2012.

Shivdani Prasad Vs Human Resource… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 5642 of 2013 Shivdani Prasad ….

¶3

…. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Ranchi.

¶6

The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

The District Education Officer, Hazaribag.

¶8

…. … Respondents

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II

¶13

¶14

7/ 07.02.2023 Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the part of the order dated 5.7.2013 contained in Memo No. 805/ 2012 (Annexure-4), whereby, the petitioner has been denied the salary in the scale of trained teacher.

¶16

Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 31.5.1982 and at the time of appointment, he was B.A. Trained, having the degree of B.P.Ed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has been paid salary with effect from 1.4.1986 and prior to that, he has not been paid any salary. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2705 of 2012, whereby, this Court directed the respondents to pay salary from the date of his joining till 1.4.1984. Pursuant to the direction passed by this Court, the respondents though paid the salary, but he was denied the salary in the scale of trained teacher. The aforesaid facts led to filing of this writ petition.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for salary from the date of his joining till 1.4.1984, as he has worked for that period and after continuing on the post, he was superannuated. Learned counsel submits that earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2705 of 2012, wherein, specific direction was given to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and after considering the judgments relied upon by the petitioner and the circular, order to that effect shall be passed and it was also held that in the event of non-payment of salary within 90 days, petitioner shall be paid interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order. Learned counsel submits that despite the direction of this Court, the respondent concerned has rejected

¶18

¶19

the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was no sanctioned post of Physical Trained Teacher and as such, petitioner is not entitled to get trained scale and he is entitled only to get untrained scale. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the order passed by the respondent is contemptuous and as such, a direction may be passed to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the order and direction passed in earlier round of litigation.

¶20

Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled for salary for the period, as the post was not sanctioned and as such, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has rightly been passed by the respondent concerned. Hence, no inference is warranted.

¶21

Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for salary in the pay scale of trained teacher. Admittedly, at the time of appointment, the petitioner was trained having the degree of B.P.Ed and this averment has further been fortified in para-10 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents. Considering the various judgments rendered in the case of similarly situated employees, this Court in earlier round of litigation directed the respondents to pay salary within 90 days. At the same time, this Court also observed that in the event of non-payment, interest @ 10% shall be paid to the petitioner. However, the respondents in disregard of the Court’s order, rejected the claim of the petitioner with respect to grant of trained teacher scale.

¶22

As a cumulative effect and considering the aforesaid facts, this Court directs the respondents to pay the trained teacher scale to the petitioner from the date of his joining till 1.4.1980. It is also made clear that the petitioner is also entitled for interest @ 10% per annum from 27.8.2012 i.e. the date of passing of order in earlier round of litigation, till the date of its actual payment. The entire exercise must be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶25

R.Kr.

Shivdani Prasad v. Human Resource Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivdani Prasad v. Human Resource Development

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

Ramdeep Prasad And Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Abdul Wahab and Ors. Vs Tourism

Muni Lal Mandal Constable Cisf No 012550182 Alias Munni Lal Mandal Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary

Nahun Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha Vs Industry Department

Kishun Deo Choudhary Vs Home Department