Arvind Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education and Skill Dev Deptt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 1335 of 2021

--

Arvind Kumar, aged about 61 years, son of Late Kaldeo Singh, resident of BIT Sindri Campus, P.O. & P.S.- Sindri, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Higher & Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & P.S.Doranda, District-Ranchi

¶8

The Director, Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District Ranchi

¶9

The Director, BIT Sindri, P.O. & P.S.-Sindri, District-Dhanbad

¶10

The Principal, BIT Sindri, PO & PS- Sindri, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶13

--

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand No. 2, A.C to G.P-IV For the Resp.-BIT : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate

¶15

--

¶16

08/10.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to quash the reasoned order as contained in Memo no. 12 dated 07.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 1; whereby the claim of the petitioner for revised pay scale of Assistant Professor with effect from 01.01.1996 and Assistant Professor, Selection Grade with effect from 31.01.2001 as has been allowed to other similarly situated Assistant Professor has been rejected.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for the similar prayer by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6357 of 2017 (Annexure-15 of the writ petition) and this Court vide order dated 08.01.2020 had categorically directed the respondent authorities to take decision

¶19

1

¶20

regarding grant of revision of pay scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 01.01.1996 and of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) with effect from 31.01.2001 to the petitioner with all consequential benefits; however perhaps the concerned authority misunderstood the order and pass a fresh order taking the same plea what was taken in the earlier writ application. Accordingly, the reasoned order may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to give all benefits what was granted by this Court in the earlier order.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner that similarly situated persons have been granted same benefit, has been disputed in the supplementary counter affidavit ; however the respondent could not dispute the fact that the same ground which was taken by them on earlier occasion which forced the petitioner to file writ application has been reiterated by way of reasoned order, though the same was negated by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier writ application.

¶22

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; to adjudicate the claim of the rival parties, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the reasoned order which is noted hereinbelow:

¶23

“That it is stated and submitted that the petitioner instead of pursuing the recommendation of promotion under CAS decided to accept the fresh appointment under the designation of Associate Professor, consequent upon, the name of the petitioner for consideration of promotion under CAS, as recommended by Letter No. 284 dated 22.03.2011 was removed from the list of consideration of promotion vide order No. 113 dated 22.07.2013 as the petitioner was already getting the higher scale of AGP 9000

¶24

It is herewith clarified that the petitioner cannot be afforded with dual benefits, one which is being provided from

¶25

2

¶26

the fresh appointment and the other one which was voluntarily relinquished by the petitioner much earlier, the treatment and development of each category of services are distinctly related the same run parallel that cannot be claimed by any employee, staying in one employment. In view of the aforesaid legal prospects the claim of revised pay scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 01.01.96 and Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 31.01.2001, by the petitioner is not tenable and justifiable, hence, hereby rejected.”

¶27

Further, after perusing the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier writ application, it appears that the submission of respondents has been recorded in para-5 of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6357 of 2017, which is extracted hereinbelow:

¶28

“Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that regarding the payments of revised pay scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 30.01.2001 under Career Advancement Scheme detailed report has been sought from the Director, BIT Sindri vide memo dated 20.11.2017 and 23.02.2018 but no reply has been received till date. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner was transferred to BIT Sindri, in the Department of Humanities from the Magadh Engineering College, Gaya, in the year 1994. The services of the petitioner was considered as the adhoc because his appointment was not concurred by the Public Service Commission, due to which the benefits to 5th Pay Commission was not given to the petitioner along with other similarly situated employees. The service of the petitioner has been regularized vide Government notification no. 3410 dated 29.11.2010 and the case of the petitioner for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Consequently, vide letter dated 22.03.2011, the name of petitioner was recommended for the up gradation in pay scale of AGP 8000. Meanwhile, subsequent to his selection to the post of Associate professor in Humanities is in view of Advertisement Dated 22.08.2007 floated by JPSC, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Associate Professor in PB-IV with AGP of Rs. 9000/- vide Government notification dated 18.03.2013. It is further submitted that since the petitioner accepted the fresh appointment as Associate Professor, the name of the petitioner for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), as recommended by letter dated 22.03.2011, was not considered and his name was removed from the list as the petitioner was already getting

¶29

3

¶30

higher AGP of 9000. It is reiterated by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the petitioner accepted and joined the post of Associate Professor in the AGP of 9000 upon his fresh selection pursuant to Advt. dated 22.08.2007 floated by JPSC his case for promotion under CAS was not considered as it would have made him entitled for dual benefits which is not tenable in the eyes of law. However, the cases of other teachers were considered for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) vide notification dated 21.01.2015.”

¶31

After going through para 5 of the order dated 8^th January, 2020 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court on earlier occasion, as well as the reasoned order, it is evident that the same ground was taken by the respondents in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner and this Court after hearing the parties and after perusing records of the case negated the said stand and passed the following order:

¶32

“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar and on perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the services of petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor has been considered w.e.f. 31.03.1993 and subsequently recommendation was made for grant of scale of the Assistant Professor (Sr. Scale and Selection Grade) under the Career Advancement Scheme but the same is denied in case of petitioner only because he has been appointed to the post of Associate Professor on the recommendation J.P.S.C. which is not accepted to this Court. Admittedly, the post of the petitioner along with 13 other professors were regularised vide Government notification no. 3410 dated 29.11.2010 and upon regularisation the petitioner along with other 13 professors became entitled for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, the proposal of the same was received by the department vide letter contained in Memo No. 284 dated 22.03.2011 for up gradation in Pay Scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale with present AGP 7000) and Assistant Professor (Selection Grade with present AGP 8000). In view of averments made in the counter affidavit, I hereby direct the respondent authorities to take decision regarding grant of revision of pay scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and of Assistant professor (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 31.01.2001 to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Emphasis Supplied

¶33

6. By going through the impugned order coupled with the contention raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ application and the reasoned order, it appears that the ground taken by the

¶34

4

¶35

respondents have already been negated by this Court in the earlier writ application and they were directed to take decision regarding grant of revision of pay scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 01.01.1996 and of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) with effect from 31.01.2001.

¶36

As a matter of fact, it can be said that para-5 of the earlier order dated 08.01.2020 where the stand of the respondents were recorded and the subsequent reasoned order, are almost same and similar and this Court fails to understand that instead of complying the order passed by this court; the competent authority has passed a reasoned order on the similar line, which was never the intent of the earlier court’s order. A mandamus was issued to the respondent authorities to implement the direction; however for the reasons best known to them, a reasoned order has been passed taking the same stand what was taken in the earlier writ application.

¶37

7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the reasoned order does not have any legs to stand in the eye of law; accordingly, the concerned respondent is directed to grant revision of pay scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) to this petitioner with effect form 01.01.1996 and Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) to this petitioner with effect from 31.01.2001, by issuing a necessary order, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.

¶38

( Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶39

jk

¶40

5

Arvind Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education and Skill Dev Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education and Skill Dev Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Shabnam Tuti Vs State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Ravi Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhi Kant Hari Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand