Govind Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 1982 of 2023

Govind Hembrom, aged about 61 years, son of Late Moso Hembrom, resident of Village Medhi Santhali, P.O. Upper Situwa, P.S. Jama, District Dumka, Jharkhand … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Development Commissioner, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand

¶8

The Block Development Officer, Jarmundi, P.O. and P.S. Jarmundi, District Dumka, Jharkhand

¶9

The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Adv. For the Respondents : Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate

¶13

¶14

08/4^th March 2024

¶15

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶16

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶17

“for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the concerned respondents to grant 1^st Assured Career Progression Benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.01.2008, as the petitioner has appointed on the post of Jan Sewak under Block Office, Jarmuni and joined on 12.01.1996 on the said post as the similarly situated employee namely Lakhiram Kol, who was appointed on the post of Jan Sewak by the same appointment letter, has been extended the 1^st ACP benefit on 12.01.2008.

¶18

And

¶19

Further prays for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the concerned respondents to rectify the objection raised by Accounts Authority, when the 2^nd MACP has been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.01.2016 by memo no. 324, dated 11.02.2022.

¶20

And

¶21

Further prays for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the concerned respondents to revise the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after granting 1^st ACP as well as 2^nd MACP and extend the monetary benefits, differences of salary as well as arrears of pension to him.

¶22

And/Or

¶23

For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

¶24

2

¶25

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Jan Sewak within Jarmundi Block vide Memo No. 72 dated 10.01.1996 issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. The name of the petitioner stood at serial No. 15 and that of one Lakhiram Kol was appearing at serial No. 11. The learned counsel submits that both, the petitioner and Lakhiram Kol, belong to Scheduled Tribe Category.

¶26

4. The learned counsel has referred to the letter of appointment to submit that as per letter of appointment itself, the persons other than Scheduled Tribe Category were required to pass tribal language examination within a period of eighteen months. 5. He submits that the petitioner has made specific statement in paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition that Lakhiram Kol, who was appointed by the same appointment letter, has been extended the benefit of 1^st ACP on 12.01.2008, whereas he had passed the examination on tribal language Santhali on 05.11.2012, but the same benefit has not been extended to the petitioner. The present petitioner claims to have passed the examination on 13.02.2012 i.e. prior to Lakhiram Kol. The learned counsel submits that irrespective of passing the examination in tribal language in terms of the appointment letter, the petitioner was entitled for 1^st ACP as there was no requirement to pass the tribal language examination. The learned counsel submits that the statements made in paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The petitioner is entitled to parity as compared to that of Lakhiram Kol.

¶27

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the prayer of the writ petitioner and submitted that the impugned action of the respondents does not call for any interference. 7. However, in spite of repeated opportunities given to the learned counsel for the respondents he is not in a position to refer anything from the counteraffidavit in connection with the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition and also the matter of similarly situated person , namely, Lakhiram Kol.

¶28

8. At this, the learned counsel has referred to the Annexure-P dated 04.04.2007 to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.02.2024 to submit that it is mandatory for everybody to pass the tribal language examination, but the petitioner had passed the same at a later date. However, the respondents is

¶29

3

¶30

not in a position to satisfy as to how and why the petitioner has been differently treated as compared to that of Lakhiram Kol.

¶31

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined his service as Jan Sewak on 10.01.1996. The appointment letter is at Annexure-1 ; the name of the petitioner appeares at serial No. 15 and that of Lakhiram Kol at serial No. 11. The petitioner has made specific statement in paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition, which are quoted as under: -

¶32

“ 8. That the petitioner humbly states that the petitioner is a scheduled tribe having knowledge of tribal language and exempted to appear in the examination of tribal language as it appears in the appointment letter.

¶33

9. That it is relevant to state here that one Lakhiram Kol, who was appointed by the same appointment letter and his name stands at serial no. 11, has been extended the benefit of 1^st ACP on 12.01.2008, whereas he passed the Santhali Examination on 05.11.2012.

¶34

10. That the petitioner humbly states that the co-employee Lakhiram Kol has been extended the 1^st ACP on 12.01.2008 and he has passed the Santhali Examination on 05.11.2012, by memo no. 10(A), dated 15.01.2015, accordingly his pay scale has been enhanced.”

¶35

10. The respondents in their counter-affidavit has responded to the aforesaid paragraphs in paragraph 12 which is quoted as under: -

¶36

“12. That in reply to paragraph 08 to 10 of the instant writ application it is humbly stated and submitted that the averments made here are matter of record hence it requires no comment by the answering respondent.”

¶37

11. The records of the case reflect that it is not in dispute that Lakhiram Kol who was appointed along with the petitioner has been extended the benefit of 1^st ACP on 12.01.2008 whereas he passed the examination on tribal language Santhali on 05.11.2012 and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been extended the 1^st ACP only from the date of passing the examination on tribal language Santhali on 13.02. 2012.

¶38

12. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been discriminated when compared to that of Lakhiram Kol who was appointed along with the petitioner through the same letter of appointment dated 10.01.1996 with the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The terms and conditions of the appointment which has been relied upon by the petitioner provides that it was compulsory for the for persons others than those belonging to schedule tribe to pass the examination on tribal language within a period of 18 months from the date of appointment. The said clause of the appointment letter is quoted as under: -

¶39

4

¶40

“नियु्ሹ जिसेवक ों की य गदाि की निनि से अिुसूनिि जिजानि क छ ड़कर अठारह माह के अोंदर अनिवायय रूप से जिजािीय भाषा परी्ቌा में उ्ቈीर्यिा ्ቚपाि करिी है अ्቗ िा वेििवृ्धि देय

¶41

िहीों ह गा।“

¶42

13. As per the supplementary counter affidavit, the Secretary to the Government, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department , Jharkhand vide memo no. 1794 dated 04.04.2007 has notified and as per paragraph 4(vii) (viii) of the notification that it is necessary for all non gazetted employees to pass the examination on one tribal language of Santhali, Uraon and Ho and to mention such condition in the terms and conditions of appointment and the earlier notification regarding this stood modified to this extent. Provisions were also made to conduct such examination at all divisional levels. Ultimately, the petitioner passed the examination on tribal language Santhali on 13.02. 2012 and said Lakhiram Kol passed the examination on tribal language Santhali on 05.11.2012; Lakhiram Kol has been extended the benefit of 1^st ACP on 12.01.2008 in terms of the appointment letter but the petitioner has not been extended the same benefit although the petitioner was also appointed by the same appointment letter and both of them belong to the scheduled tribe.

¶43

14. The terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated 10.01.1996 as quoted above provides that it was compulsory for the persons [ others than those belonging to schedule tribe] to pass the examination on tribal language within a period of 18 months from the date of appointment ; this court finds that the petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions of appointment and has passed the examination on tribal language Santhali on 13.02.2012 and therefore the claim of 1^st ACP extended to Lakhiram Kol from 12.01.2008 cannot be denied to the petitioner, who is a similarly situated person. Such denial is an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the respondents which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶44

15. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate follow up order such that the petitioner stands similarly treated as that of Lakhiram Kol, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶45

16. The petitioner to approach the respondent No. 2 by filing a representation along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order within a period of 15 days from today.

¶46

17. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of this judgement and pass follow up

¶47

5

¶48

order within a period of four weeks from the date of representation. The follow up order(s) be also communicated to the petitioner through speed-post at the address to be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself.

¶49

18. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶50

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶51

Mukul

Govind Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

Govind Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ranju Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogesh Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Sao Alias Munneshwar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ejazul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

Gita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand