Disposed

Gaya Lal Hembram v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2024WPC/2436/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Teachers sought arrears of difference of salary from 1989 to 2003 and revision of pay scales under successive Pay Revisions on parity with similarly situated teachers. The court found the grievance stood redressed by office order dated 02.08.2021 but monetary benefit was unpaid, and directed payment within eight weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gaya Lal Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2436 of 2021

¶3

¶4

Gaya Lal Hembram, aged about 65 years, son of Sridas Hembram, resident of Kanimohuli, P.O. Vend, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

¶5

Mango Murmu, aged about 73 years, son of Kala Chand Murmu, resident of village Kanimohuli, P.O. Vend, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

¶6

Ramni Mandi, aged about 63 years, wife of Late Ramkrishna Mandi, resident of village Kalidaspur. P.O Vend, P.S Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

¶7

Nagendra Nath Mandi, aged about 68 years, son of Kandra Mandi, resident of village Jaynagar, P.O. Bhandas, PS Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

¶8

Budhram Kisku, aged about 66 years, son of Parau Kisku, resident of village Biharipur, P.O. Bhandas, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

¶9

Fulmani Murmu, aged about 61 years, wife of Rajendra Nath Murmu, resident of village Luwagram, P.O Amalagora, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

¶10

Hadiram Tudu, aged about 65 years, son of Badal Tudu, resident of village Bada Nata, P.O. Kendradangari, P.S. Chakulia, District Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

¶11

Sharat Satat, aged about 70 years, son of Late Mohini Mohan Gwala, resident of village Shishkhund, P.O. Kendradangari, P.S Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

¶12

Satish Chandra Murmu, aged about 69 years, son of Narayan Chandra Murmu, resident of village Dwarishol, P.O. Bhandas, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

¶13

Amrit Kumar Mandal, aged about 67 years, son of Chandra Mohan Mandal, resident of village Biharipur. P.O. Bhandas, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

¶14

Prithvi Nath Hansda, aged about 66 years, son of Lawa Hansda, resident of village Gamharia, P.O.Bhandas, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhom at Jamshedpur.

¶15

Jay Ram Murmu, aged about 71 years, son of Late Jhumpu Murmu, resident of village Matiyal, P.O Khandamouda, P.S. Baharagora, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

¶16

Bhuta Tudu, aged about 71 years, son of Late Ratan Tudu, resident of village Aasanbani, P.O. Maluwa, Badashol, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

¶17

...Petitioners.

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi.

¶20

The Director, Department of School Education and Literacy (Primary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C Township, PO. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶21

¶22

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division at Chaibasa, P.O, P.S.- Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum

¶23

The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. &, P.S. Mango, District-East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

¶24

.....Respondents.

¶25

¶26

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶27

¶28

For the Petitioner : M/s. Rahul Kumar, Apoorva Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I

¶29

-- 05/18.09.2024 The defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs:

¶32

(i) For equitable relief in the matter of payment of arrears of difference of salary for the period from 1989 to 2003 as has been allowed to the writ petitioners of W.P(S) No. 969/2006 and other analogous cases while considering that the matter has been agitated by the State authorities up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and they had lost, whereupon direction has been passed for allowing such benefits to all similarly situated Assistant Teachers.

¶33

(ii) For a direction upon the respondent authorities to revise the pay scale of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 under 4th Pay Revision and to consequently replace the same in the pay scale of Rs. 50008000 under 5th Pay Revision and in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 under 6th Pay Revision and to consequently release the same with arrears of difference of pay scale.

¶34

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court towards paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 and submits that though the claim of the petitioners has been entertained and pay has been revised, but actual monetary benefit has not been given to them till date. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that by virtue of office order as contained in Memo no. 1851 dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), the grievance of the petitioners has already been 2

¶35

redressed and certainly the monetary benefit will also be paid to them at the earliest.

¶36

Having regard to the prayer made in the instant writ application, coupled with the averments made in paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioners has been redressed; however as per the petitioners the monetary benefit has not yet been paid to them.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the monetary benefit which has accrued pursuant to the office order dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) , the same be given to the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶39

( Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶40

¶41

Gaya Lal Hembram v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gaya Lal Hembram v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marufa Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukendar Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary/ Pr Secretary Deptt of Forest Environment and Climate

Manoj Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhim Bauri Vs Chief Manager Cum Managing Director

MD Shamsul Haque Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand